Setiap Artikel Malaysiawaves ke Email Anda.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Dipersilakan untuk Like Facebook Page T. Besi

Search Malaysiawaves

Sunday, February 13, 2011

The US Fears Muslim Brotherhood because They Cannot be Bought

NOTE: The real reason for the US, Isreal and EU's fear of Ikhwan Muslimin is because Ikhwan is the most principled organization in the whole of Egypt. Having gone through everything that they have gone through under various regimes, they have managed to come up the victor.

Now, with the fall of Mubarak and his regimes, the Ikhwan is set to take power in Egypt through free and fair elections. The US, Israel and the West sees this as a major inconvenience considering Ikhwan reputation as a clean and incorruptible party.

America like corrupted regimes. They can be controlled much easier than those who are not corrupted.



Clarifying the Muslim Brotherhood As Mubarak's regime starts to topple, there is speculation whether the Muslim Brotherhood will dominate the new Egyptian political landscape. It will undoubtedly play a role in creating a new government, but is adamant in its stance that is does not seek leadership and will not field candidates for presidency. The Brotherhood is the largest, most popular, and most effective opposition group in Egypt.

Those who oppose the Muslim Brotherhood usually contrive their arguments against them saying that they represent Islamic tyranny, adding that the Muslim Brotherhood was originally an anti-system group that committed acts of violence against its opponents in the pre-1952 era. However, portraying the Brotherhood as eager to seize power and impose Islamic law on an unwilling nation is ludicrous, as the group has obviously changed and evolved throughout its history and its stances in the current crisis constitute a voice of moderation, insight and determination that can only be applauded, and which has gained the group, and protestors international sympathy and support.

Founded in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood is the longest continuous contemporary Islamist group. It was initially established, not as a political party, but as a da'wa (religious outreach) association that aimed to cultivate pious and committed Muslims through preaching, social services, and spreading religious commitment and integrity by example. It called on Egyptians to unite to confront imperialism and pursue economic development and social justice.

In 1984, the Brotherhood started running candidates in elections. The Brotherhood entered the political system to advocate for the people's will and be the voice of ethics and justice. Leaders who were elected to professional syndicates engaged in sustained dialogue and cooperation with members of other political movements. Through interaction, Islamists and Arabists found common ground in the call for an expansion of public freedoms, democracy, and respect for human rights and the rule of law.

The Brotherhood has been working for years on projects to create a civic charter and a constitution, preparing for the time when a new democratic government came to power. During the past week of protests, members of the cross-partisan groups were able to quickly reactivate their networks and help form a united opposition front. It is likely that these members will play a key role in drafting Egypt's new constitution.

Over the last 30 years, the Brotherhood has developed expertise in electoral competition and representation, and has developed new professional competencies and skills, forging closer ties with Egyptian activists, researchers, journalists, and politicians outside the Islamist camp. The leadership is more internally diverse today than ever before.

There is a new generation of Islamist democracy activists both inside and outside the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood is using discretion in its function in the uprising, aware that the greater its role, the higher the risk of a violent crackdown. There is a historic precedent for this in the harsh wave of repression that followed its strong showing in the 2005 parliamentary elections. Its immediate priority is to ensure that President Hosni Mubarak steps down and that the era of corruption and dictatorship associated with his rule comes to an end. The Brotherhood also knows that a smooth transition to a democratic system will require an interim government palatable to the military and the West, so it has indicated that it would not seek positions in the new government itself.

Reformers, like the Brotherhood, will be vital among the other opposition groups when they draft a new constitution and establish the framework for new elections. The Brotherhood has demonstrated that it is capable of evolving over time, and the best way for Egypt to strengthen its democratic commitments is to include it in the political process, making sure there are checks and balances in place to ensure that no group can monopolize state power and that all citizens are guaranteed certain freedoms under the law. This is what the Brotherhood is calling for.

The Brotherhood has a track record of nearly 30 years of responsible behavior and has a strong base of support. It has thereby earned a place at the table in the post-Mubarak era. And indeed, no democratic transition can succeed without it.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Brotherhood, as widely noted, came late to the protests, abstaining from participation until the broadness and depth of the movement became apparent. Joel Benin, in his commentary on ForeignPolicy.com, notes:

“As usual, Egypt’s opposition parties were ineffectual. The so-called ‘left’ Tagammu’ Party refused to endorse the demonstrations out of appreciation for the police (January 25 is Police Day in Egypt). The pro-business Wafd Party never announced a clear position. Ghad (Tomorrow) Party leader Ayman Nour, who won seven percent of the vote in the 2005 presidential elections, did support the demonstrations. The physically frail Nour was beaten by police and ended up in the hospital on January 25. His party, however, is split and not particularly popular.

“The Muslim Brotherhood, widely acknowledged as the largest and best organized opposition force in the country, abstained from the January 25 demonstrations, but belatedly endorsed the January 28 demonstrations. Perhaps as a result of this waffling there has been almost no Islamic content to the demonstrations. The tone has mostly been nationalist and secular.”

The old opposition, including the Brotherhood, didn’t initiate the demonstrations, which raises the question: well then, who did?

Anonymous said...

The April 6 Youth movement, founded by Ahmed Salah and Ahmed Maher, is a tech-savvy group of loosely-associated bloggers and activists who were earlier associated with campaigns to free imprisoned journalists and bloggers, support labor actions, and organize protests over Israel’s invasion of Gaza. Utilizing Facebook, Twitter, and other social media, it was the April 6′ers who initiated the demonstrations that culminated in the “march of millions”: the other opposition groups clambered on board as the movement took off and grew to include virtually every sector of Egyptian society. Its founders and leaders have been continually harassed and many were arrested, and yet they endured and became the catalyzing force for Egypt’s democratic revolution. Neither a political party, nor even an ideological grouping, they are united around the- demands for civil liberties, freedom of speech and association, and the opening up of Egypt’s sclerotic authoritarian system.

The John Boltons of this world imagine these youngsters will soon be pushed aside, along with Mohamed ElBaradei, whose leadership they have coalesced around: Bolton & Co. liken ElBaradei to Kerensky, with the Brotherhood in the role of the Leninists. Yet what is happening in Egypt – and across North Africa and the Middle East – is a lot closer to 1989 than 1917.

Anonymous said...

The Russian Revolution was a violent paroxysm, in which many lives were lost: in 1989, however, when Lenin’s heirs were finally overthrown, hardly a shot was fired. The huge and practically simultaneous rising against the Stalinist regimes of the Warsaw Pact was remarkably nonviolent: there was no Tiananmen moment, no gunfire – just the eerily hollow sound of a doomed empire imploding. This is precisely what is happening in Egypt today: a massive nonviolent movement for change is defeating a heavily-armed yet apparently impotent State apparatus, in the streets and in the minds of men.

The Brotherhood is a well-established presence in Egypt, which, for a time, the US and its Egyptian sock puppets were allied with during the cold war era, as a bulwark against Nasserite and pro-Soviet socialist groupings. As Robert Dreyfuss points out in his book Devil’s Game:

“In Egypt, Anwar Sadat brought the Muslim Brotherhood back to Egypt. In Syria, the United States, Israel, and Jordan supported the Muslim Brotherhood in a civil war against Syria. And, as described in a groundbreaking chapter in Devil’s Game, Israel quietly backed Ahmed Yassin and the Muslim Brotherhood in the West Bank and Gaza, leading to the establishment of Hamas.”

For all the scaremongering about the Brotherhood by the neoconservative right, the reality is that the group moderated its policies long ago, renouncing violence, running election campaigns, and declaring the compatibility of Islam and democratic civil society: for this they are regularly denounced by al-Qaeda. Even the more intelligent neocons recognize the Brotherhood will inevitably be a part of the democratic mosaic if the Middle East is to be modernized and lured away from real extremism. As Reuel Marc Gerecht puts it in The Islamic Paradox:

“Many Israelis and their American supporters may rise in horror contemplating replacing peace-treaty-signing dictators with fundamentalists who may partly build a democratic consensus on anti-Zionism. But down this uneasy path lies an end to bin Ladenism and the specter of an American city attacked with weapons of mass destruction.”

The Brotherhood will no doubt be a factor in post-Mubarak Egypt, but hardly a decisive one: that role belongs to the rising middle classes and the culture of modernity that has been unleashed by the new technology.

Anonymous said...

Much more significant than hyped fears of a Brotherhood takeover, however, is the subtext of this fear campaign, which is all about regime change being bad for Israel. A new government, no matter how liberal on the surface, and how US-friendly it may turn out, is bound to be less friendly to Israel, and certainly far less willing to keep the Palestinians penned up in Gaza.

This is true – but so what? The Israelis have long since killed the much-touted “peace process,” and proceeded with their plan to colonize the West Bank. And it’s quite telling that the Palestinian Authority, at the height of the Egyptian events, sent a message of solidarity – to Mubarak! So much for their credibility as legitimate representatives of Arab people.

The Egyptian government, post-Mubarak, is not likely to attack Israel: indeed, the fear is that the Israelis may very well attack Egypt in a preemptive strike. And the Israelis, need I remind you, are armed with nuclear weapons: surely that is the wildest wild card in the Middle East mix, more volatile than anything the Brotherhood has in its arsenal.

This concatenation of events in the Middle East underscores what has been evident for some time: that Israeli and American interests, far from being complementary, are counterposed. The uprising is not a disaster for the US and its legitimate interests – Egypt has many economic and cultural ties to the United States, which are not about to be easily severed – but Israel has good reason to worry.

Anonymous said...

By supporting Mubarak – indeed, urging other nations to tamp down their criticism of the Egyptian despot – and believing in the myth of his invincibility right up until the last moment, the Israelis have pretty much killed any chance of good relations with the government that emerges. Jordan, too – another collaborator with Tel Aviv – is feeling the effects of the regional revolution, and may yet experience a similar convulsion. That the Israelis made their security dependent on an enduring Arab despotism is a strategic error that will cost them dearly. But whose fault is that?

Harping on the Brotherhood and its secondary role in the Egyptian upsurge is the chief “alternative” narrative now floating about, the last refuge of neocons and Islamophobes who are wedded to their narrow worldview in spite of the facts. There is another narrative, however, another sort of conspiracy theory, which some on the right have embraced, which posits that the United States government, and not the Brotherhood or al-Qaeda, is the real force behind Egypt’s revolutionary wave. And, no, I’m not kidding.

An article that appeared early on in the Telegraph, headlined “America’s Secret Backing for Rebel Leaders Behind Uprising,” appears to be the genesis of this ‘theory.” It starts out by citing a “secret document” that supposedly shows how Washington, inexplicably, decided to create a crisis for itself by undermining Mubarak:

“The American government secretly backed leading figures behind the Egyptian uprising who have been planning ‘regime change’ for the past three years, The Daily Telegraph has learned. The American Embassy in Cairo helped a young dissident attend a US-sponsored summit for activists in New York, while working to keep his identity secret from Egyptian state police.

Anonymous said...

“On his return to Cairo in December 2008, the activist told US diplomats that an alliance of opposition groups had drawn up a plan to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak and install a democratic government in 2011. The disclosures, contained in previously secret US diplomatic dispatches released by the WikiLeaks website, show American officials pressed the Egyptian government to release other dissidents who had been detained by the police.

“…In a secret diplomatic dispatch, sent on December 30 2008, Margaret Scobey, the US Ambassador to Cairo, recorded that opposition groups had allegedly drawn up secret plans for ‘regime change’ to take place before elections, scheduled for September this year.

“It said the activist claimed ‘several opposition forces’ had ‘agreed to support an unwritten plan for a transition to a parliamentary democracy, involving a weakened presidency and an empowered prime minister and parliament, before the scheduled 2011 presidential elections.’ The embassy’s source said the plan was ‘so sensitive it cannot be written down.’

“Ambassador Scobey questioned whether such an ‘unrealistic’ plot could work, or ever even existed. However, the documents showed that the activist had been approached by US diplomats and received extensive support for his pro-democracy campaign from officials in Washington. The embassy helped the campaigner attend a ‘summit’ for youth activists in New York, which was organised by the US State Department.”

Midway throught the text, we are invited to view the “secret documents” for ourselves – which consist merely of the WikiLeaks cable, copied and pasted onto the Telegraph web site. A thorough examination of the cable reveals, not a US plot, but the complete indifference of the Americans to the plot – indeed, it shows, to an embarrassing degree, just how clueless and out of touch American diplomats and government officials were (and are).

The April 6 activist discussed in the cable – probably Maher – did indeed attend a “youth summit” organized by the US State Department, but about the only thing the US government did was protect his identity while he attended the conference, and lobby Mubarak to let jailed bloggers go, as they have been doing in any case. The cable goes on to report:

Anonymous said...

“XXXXXXXXXXX described how he tried to convince his Washington interlocutors that the USG should pressure the GOE [Government of Egypt] to implement significant reforms by threatening to reveal information about GOE officials’ alleged “illegal” off-shore bank accounts. He hoped that the U.S. and the international community would freeze these bank accounts, like the accounts of Zimbabwean President Mugabe’s confidantes. XXXXXXXXXXXX said he wants to convince the USG that Mubarak is worse than Mugabe and that the GOE will never accept democratic reform. XXXXXXXXXXXX asserted that Mubarak derives his legitimacy from U.S. support, and therefore charged the U.S. with ‘being responsible’ for Mubarak’s ‘crimes.’ He accused NGOs working on political and economic reform of living in a ‘fantasy world,’ and not recognizing that Mubarak – ‘the head of the snake’ – must step aside to enable democracy to take root.”

One can’t imagine that any of this sat very well with our placid and oh-so-proper diplomats, and indeed it did not. In a comment appended to the report of the interview, the State Department is advised by our Ambassador:

“XXXXXXXXXXXX offered no roadmap of concrete steps toward April 6′s highly unrealistic goal of replacing the current regime with a parliamentary democracy prior to the 2011 presidential elections. Most opposition parties and independent NGOs work toward achieving tangible, incremental reform within the current political context, even if they may be pessimistic about their chances of success. XXXXXXXXXXXX’s wholesale rejection of such an approach places him outside the mainstream of opposition politicians and activists.”

In other words, they told him: Get lost, kid, and come back when you grow up and learn to live with despotism. Fortunately, he didn’t listen.

Anonymous said...

From from showing that the Egyptian uprising is a CIA plot to get rid of a longtime client, the cable shows the complete incompetence and moral blindness of the Obama administration and the US diplomatic corps in general. Meeting with a few members of Congress and their staffs, and attending a couple of think-tank seminars, does not quite constitute a secret plot. From the looks of things, it doesn’t seem like the Americans even put up his airfare for the “youth summit,” because he complains that due to lack of funds he won’t be able to attend the next one. Nor does the cable mention that US diplomats approached or sought out members of the April 6 movement in any way: instead, they were considered marginal boat-rockers, bound to come to a bad end.

Disabused of any notion that the US government is a force for good in the world, the young activist returned to Egypt and helped organize an “unrealistic” movement that is now on the verge of a resounding victory – and the US is caught completely flat-footed. Some US “plot”!

What these two seemingly contradictory narratives have in common is that they both assign the Egyptian people to, at best, a supporting role in the events now unfolding before our eyes. The neocons tells us that the Brotherhood is the secret manipulator pulling the strings behind the scenes, while others insist the long arm of the US State Department (and, presumably, the CIA) is the hidden hand behind Mubarak’s ouster. Both “theories” are nonsense.

What we are seeing in Egypt is not the result of the machinations of shadowy groups, either state actors or sinister jihadists: it is the explosion created by the pent up energy and anger of an entire generation of Egyptians who see how a (relatively) free society in the West lives and works, and wants the same for their long-suffering nation. Like the East Germans, the Russians, and all the citizens of the “captive nations” in the old Soviet bloc, the Egyptians are rising against the complacency and Stockholm Syndrome that was eating away at the very heart of their society and destroying their souls.

Is that really so hard to understand?
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/02/01/egypt-battle-of-the-narratives/

Anonymous said...

People & Power - Egypt: Seeds of change(aljazeera englih)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrNz0dZgqN8

Anonymous said...

Report: Army told Mubarak to step down or face 'soft coup'

Officials tell Washington Post Egyptian president's initial refusal to resign angered White House, surprised his aides, prompted military to issue ultimatum. On Friday Mubarak was told he must step down, and within hours was headed to Sharm el-Sheikh

Ynet
Published: 02.12.11, 14:06 / Israel News
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's initial refusal to resign surprised his aides, angered the White House, enraged Cairo's legions of protesters and pushed the country closer to chaos, senior American officials told the Washington Post.


The officials said that within hours of Mubarak's speech, in which he appeared determined to cling to office, Egyptian army officials confronted the discredited president with an ultimatum: Step down voluntarily, or be forced out.

Anonymous said...

According to the Washington Post's report, published Saturday, the likelihood of Mubarak's departure alternately rose and dipped as US military officers and diplomats "quietly worked with their Egyptian counterparts in a search for peaceful resolution to the country's worst unrest in six decades."


By midweek, the report said, senior military and civilian leaders reached an apparent agreement with Mubarak on some form of power transfer. Communication between top American and Egyptian officials had become increasingly sporadic early this week as Mubarak's deputies complained publicly about US interference in Cairo's affairs. But then, according to the Washington Post, US intelligence and military officials began to learn details of the plan by Egyptian military leaders - something between a "negotiated exit and a soft coup d'etat - to relieve Mubarak of most, if not all, of his powers."



The plan, officials told the Washington Post, went into effect Thursday with announcements in Cairo to pro-democracy demonstrators that their key demands were about to be met. A rare meeting was convened of Egypt's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, and afterward a military spokesman released a communiqué that seemed to affirm the army's control over the government.

Anonymous said...

Hours later in Washington, CIA Director Leon told the House Intelligence Committee there was a "strong likelihood that Mubarak may step down this evening," according to the report.



At 10 pm (Cairo time) Mubarak said in a nationally televised address that he would transfer some of his duties to Vice President Omar Suleiman but offered no hint of stepping down.



US officials and Middle East experts who analyzed the speech said it was a case of extraordinary miscalculation on Mubarak's part. "It was a public relations disaster," Daniel Kurtzer, a former US ambassador to Egypt, told the Washington Post.


A US government official told the newspaper that shortly after the speech, which was described by some American officials as bordering on delusional, "support for Mubarak from (the) military dropped precipitously.

Anonymous said...

"The military had been willing - with the right tone in the speech - to wait and see how it played out," the official was quoted by the Washington Post as saying. "They didn't like what they saw."



According to the report, even Suleiman, Mubarak's longtime intelligence chief, joined ranks with military leaders late Thursday. "He had been trying to walk a fine line between retaining support for Mubarak while trying to infuse common sense into the equation," the US official told the Washington Post. "By the end of the day, it was clear the situation was no longer tenable."



Mubarak was told Friday that he must step down, and within hours, he was on his way to the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.

Anonymous said...

awat ni? copy paste panjang berjela, awat x tulis link saja.

Anonymous said...

//awat ni? copy paste panjang berjela, awat x tulis link saja.//
oh boleh tulis link,tapi pundek maney mcm hang tak akan clik atau copy url link dan baca..

Anonymous said...

aku akan baca kalau benda tu berguna, kalau benda sampah hampas copy paste macam ni buang masaaaaaaaa.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

ARiF merupakan jentera utama Harapan Baru di dalam membantu kelancaran gerakerja semua peringkat.

Kami ARiF Melaka memerlukan sumbangan dan bantuan kewangan daripada tuanpuan untuk kami melakukan gerakerja berkenaan. Oleh kerana kami masih baru, sumbangan diperlukan untuk menampung kos pakaian, membeli peralatan komunikasi, peralatan lalulintas dan sebagainya.

Kami amat berbebsar hati jika tuan/puan dapat menghulurkan sumangan kepada kami. Segala sumbangan diserahkan kepada pemegang amanah ARiF Melaka.

MOHD AZWAN AHMAD
a/k Maybank : 104013154427

Hantarkan makluman bank-in melalui SMS/WA ke 016-981 1315 (H.ANUAR)

Semuga Allah membalas segala jasa baik tuan/puan semua.