Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

Archive

The Lost Revolution

by

By Lamya Hussein Marafi

It almost seems that the Egyptian revolution never happened, or is still waiting to happen. A struggling economy, an ambiguous foreign policy, extremely brutal police system, continuous fatal train accidents, increasing unemployment rate, sexual harassment of both women and men, a controversial constitution, the abandoned, ‘dangerous’ land of Sinai, a return to the emergency law, and a threat of a state collapse —President Morsi is torn and lost between satisfying the Muslim Brotherhood or the revolution.

The battle between the President’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the revolutionaries will continue until one side wins or the military intervenes. If the MB continues to hold firmly to power, Egypt’s relationship with the West could deteriorate due to fractionalized, poor governance and the rise of Islamic extremism. On the other hand, if the revolutionaries succeed, then they will also face challenges in creating a unified opposition that will continue to seek dialogue and political integration. This is because they are widely thought of as seculars, liberals, moderates, socialists, and even Muslims and Christians who simply oppose the MB. It is unlikely that the military will intervene due to political alienation, criticisms, and exhaustion from governing Egypt’s post-revolution transitional period. If so, for now the battle is between the MB and the revolutionaries.

The MB, including President Morsi, claims that they are not abandoning the revolution, while the opposition claims that Morsi and the MB ‘hijacked’ the revolution. The MB desperately wants to control Tahrir Square, even though this was where all political groups rallied against Mubarak. Tahrir Square and other major public spaces across Egypt will continue to be the microcosm of the struggle over who should represent Egypt’s revolution. The beauty and irony of it all is that no single leader or political group was credited for triggering the revolution: literally anyone who opposed Mubarak’s regime went out to the streets calling for the regime’s downfall.

Given this alarming situation, Egypt’s revolution seems lost. A solution will be difficult to implement because it seems unfortunately too late for President Morsi to regain the trust of the opposition in order to achieve a sense of consensus. Likewise, it is very unlikely that he can rebuild faith to engage in national political dialogue.

The country is caught in a vicious cycle. Security-sector reform needs to be initiated from within the government to avoid a descent into anarchy and chaos. A stable, solid economy and democracy will not thrive without the proper development of state security and institutions. But it is risky to rely on foreign aid to achieve security sector reform or even some form of economic stability. An influx of foreign aid will increase Egypt’s dependency on the West or perhaps the Gulf region, stirring political controversy among those who expect a lack of transparency on loan conditions and future repayment of debts.  At some point, a leader must emerge out of this revolution who will be capable of establishing political consensus and a sustainable vision to get Egypt’s out of its ‘collapsed’ state paradox.

The revolution was genuinely peaceful and people-led. However, with all the chaos developing as a result of the dramatic change and lack of political security and reform, the revolution is at a crossroads. It could either lead to complete state collapse or a nostalgic return to Mubarak’s past. It is not useful to reflect whether it was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ to overthrow Mubarak in this particular period, as Mubarak’s regime would have eventually collapsed, for better or for worse. More urgent and important is to think about how this lost revolution can be found again.

—

Lamya Marafi is currently pursuing her master’s degree in Conflict, Security, and Development at King’s College London. Lamya’s interest is the Middle East region, especially youth and women’s empowerment, as well as civil society. She also loves traveling to explore diverse cultures.

Joining the ‘Million Man March’

by

By Nesma El Shazly

I was not allowed to leave the house throughout the first week of the revolution. Although my parents wholeheartedly endorsed the revolution, they feared for my life and would not let me join the protests. For this reason I spent that week documenting the events as they unfolded from my own home. The Egyptian people were revolting against sixty years of military rule, calling for three demands: bread, freedom and social justice. For eighteen consecutive days, protesters were engaged in face-to-face confrontations with President Mubarak’s brutal central security forces. Revolutionaries peacefully faced live ammunition, rubber bullets, tear gas, kidnappings and detainment with complete fearlessness.

After watching the horrifying brutality with which protesters were met on The Friday of Anger (28 January), I decided that enough was enough. I could not sit at home helplessly watching my people die. I frantically called up all my friends to see who was willing to march to Tahrir Square with me. Needless to say most of my male friends tried to discourage me out of concern for my safety. I was one of many women facing difficulty in taking to the streets and so, my friends and I, all women, decided to join the ‘Million Man March’ on 1 February.

As I walked down the stairs carrying the banner that I had spent the whole night making, my mother followed me, tightly gripping my hoodie, trying to pull me back. My brother drove me to my friend’s house, where we had all planned to meet. That morning came to be a turning point in my life. As we were about to leave to Tahrir, my best friend called me from the airport to tell me that she and her husband were leaving for the U.S for the safety of their 2 year-old child.  I experienced a mixture of conflicting emotions. I felt content that I was doing the right thing, excited that I was going to be a part of making history, apprehension of the risks I was about to take and sorrow that I could not even bid my best friend farewell.

There were three phases to our day: comedy, terror and euphoria. The first phase took place on the underground train. As we purchased our tickets the vendor looked at us with pride and said “May God be with you,” while a man standing behind us in line looked at us in disgust and told his wife that we were probably drug addicts. As we boarded the train, an old man selling copies of the Quran followed us on and tried to convince us that we should buy a copy and read it before we go to Tahrir and die. The adverse reactions we received throughout our journey put us in hysterics.

We experienced the second phase – terror – as we got off the train in downtown Cairo. We marched through the streets towards the Square alongside several other small groups. Mubarak supporters were surrounding the Square yelling out foul words at all the revolutionaries. An older woman followed me and grabbed my arm asking me where I was going. I looked her straight in the eye and said, “I’m going to Tahrir.” She tightened her grip on my arm and started hitting me and shouting out, “You are going to ruin this country! You are going to turn Egypt into Iraq!” My friends eventually realized that I had been held back and ran to my aid.  It was only at this point that we realized the extent of danger we were subjecting ourselves to. We resumed our journey quietly.

As we got closer to the Square we started hearing the enthusiastic chants of the protesters, “Al sha’ab yoreed isqaat al nizam!” (The people demand the fall of the regime!) Surges of revolutionary spirit and energy shot into us, abolishing our fear and wiping away thoughts of our encounter with Mubarak supporters. I have never felt as safe as I did that day in the Square. We were all brothers and sisters uniting for one common goal. People welcomed us as we marched in, handing us water and fruit. Nobody looked at us. No man tried to harass us. Everyone there truly believed in the cause. They knew that this was a matter of life or death.

While the world classifies the events of 25 January as a revolution, most revolutionaries have a contrary view. We ousted one brutal figurehead, and that in itself is a tremendous accomplishment.  But we have yet to dissolve the ruthless military regime that has ruled our country for 60 years. The Egyptian public was manipulated into believing that the military supported our revolution. But their assumption of power following the ousting of Mubarak suggests otherwise. It seems more likely, in my eyes, that the military sought to reinstate their power, which had seen a downturn during Mubarak’s later years. Throughout that period, Mubarak shifted his focus towards the business elite, bringing prominent businessmen into the political sphere.

During November 2011, the public was voting in the parliamentary elections that the military was administering. Concurrently, protesters were being attacked and killed by central security forces in the Mohamed Mahmoud clashes. Not only were we seeing the military gradually replace central security forces, we were also seeing protesters being unlawfully detained and tried in military prisons and courts. Furthermore, we had yet to see the last of Omar Suleiman and Ahmed Shafiq, who later sought to run for presidency. Omar Suleiman, a leading figure of Egypt’s inhumane intelligence system, renowned for his direct implication in the CIA’s callous rendition programme, took on the role of Vice President on 29 January. Suleiman later sought to run for the 2012 presidential elections. However, he failed to garner enough support in the initial stages of the race. Ahmed Shafiq, a military-backed figurehead that turned his back on the revolution through his assumption of the position of Prime Minister on 31 January, also sought to enter the race. However, unlike Suleiman, Shafiq somehow managed to garner widespread support. His support base mainly derived from ardent anti-revolutionary supporters of the Mubarak regime and the military, as well as liberals who feared the growing dominance of the Muslim Brotherhood in the political sphere. The fact that Shafiq was even able to run for president, let alone make it to the final round of the elections, shows that the revolution is far from over

—
Nesma El Shazly was born and raised in the UK. She moved to Egypt in 2007 to study at the American University in Cairo. On 1 Feb 2011, she took to the streets in protest and she has been a participant of the Egyptian Revolution ever since.

COMING SOON ON STRIFE: ‘The Lost Revolution’, by Lamya Hussein Marafi, assessing the remaining challenges for Egypt’s revolution.

Photobolsillo

by

By Laura Hamilton

Sánchez, Gervasio. Photobolsillo (La Fábrica, Spain, 2011)Gervasio Sánchez: PHotoBolsillo

Amazon, paperback new from $15.60

My first exposure to the work of Gervasio Sanchez was his exhibition, Antologia, in Madrid last year. Exhibited in an old warehouse, his photographs were made even more haunting by their surroundings. In his work, he captures the human aspect to war – depicting people both during and after conflict has ended.

Although I had never heard of him before I lived in Spain, he is one of Spain’s biggest war photojournalists, winning various prizes over the years and covering many major conflicts: from Central America to Lusophone Africa to Eastern Europe and various other places in between. He has also focused on more specialist issues, such as the desaparecidos in Latin America; the people who ‘disappeared’ during conflicts and their families do not know what happened to them. Through this focus he raises awareness of problems that are frequently ignored post-conflict by broadcasting them to the outside world.

My experience in Madrid led me to want to see more of his work, to learn more about what he had done and where he had been. Pasión y Memoria (Passion and Memory) stood out to me since it is not only readily available, but it also featured a selection of his work, rather than focusing on one specific conflict. Published as part of the PhotoBolsillo series, which focuses on Spain’s most important photographers, it contains an introduction by Sandra Balsells, a fellow photojournalist. Following this, each image in the book has a simple caption, explaining where the photograph was taken and the year. Portraying everything from victims of mines in Mozambique, to child soldiers in Peru, this small book of black and white images allows you to travel with him through his experiences and see conflicts through his eyes. The photographs depict emotions and people’s experiences of conflict. Although I am not familiar with the work of many war photojournalists, I know that his work makes me feel as if I am able to see a side of conflict that is frequently forgotten in newspaper reports.

Many of his images feature children and highlight their resilience after conflict. For me, one of the most powerful images is No. 42. The image features two young boys in Panama, hanging off the skeletal remains of a building after the invasion in 1991.  If you were to replace their surroundings, it would look no different to a photograph of children playing on a climbing frame. However, their smiles contrast with the bombed out remains that surround them, a reminder of the warzone where the image was captured. Yet they are still playing games, swinging off posts and appearing to be in a race with one another. Whereas many war photojournalists only capture the misery of war, this photo, along with many of Gervasio Sanchez’s other images, shows the hope that still exists after a conflict.

I would recommend this book as a starting point for Sanchez’s work. Although the photo captions are written in Spanish, the introduction, which gives an overview of his career, is provided in both English and Spanish. Nonetheless, the images themselves are powerful enough that they need no words to explain them.

Panetta Speaks at King's

by

By Amelie Sundberg

To most of my friends beyond the War Studies Department at King’s Leon Panetta doesn’t quite achieve celebrity status or the description as ‘cool’.  But Friday morning was definitely cool.  As I battled through the snow to the Strand building I couldn’t help but notice the big men in overcoats with ear pieces – not the common tourists at Somerset house. I felt very privileged to be one of the lucky students about to see Panetta’s ‘Big Speech’ of his European Tour, probably one of his last major speeches as US Secretary of Defence.

To be honest, I realised that I had no idea what to expect from the man in charge of the world’s strongest defence establishment and former director of the CIA.  His affable composure surprised me.  Perhaps I am simply a victim of good speech writing, but I felt I saw a glimpse of Leon the human, just like us, which made his career even more inspiring.

Panetta’s speech in many respects was predictable.  After a few words on the current hostage situation in Algeria, his main focus was on the Transatlantic relationship and NATO.  Particularly predictable was his frequent referral to the ‘special’ US-British relationship.  Having said that, I enjoyed Panetta’s historical anecdotes. Recalling his memories as a little boy during the last years of the Second World War, he said that Roosevelt and Churchill’s personal friendship and “clear-eyed resolve” had inspired a generation in war and continues to inspire us today. He sees  NATO as the fulfilment of their dreams to ensure that “the world would never again descend into turmoil”.  Panetta thinks that the transatlantic alliance is today facing a turning point, where it might retreat from its responsibilities due to altered priorities and fiscal restraints or could demonstrate creativity and the commitment to remain resolute.

On the one hand, the world is witnessing a period of conflict coming to a close – the Iraq war is over, NATO has declared troop withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2014, Al Qaeda has been largely dissembled and the intervention in Libya is drawing to a close.  On the other hand, Panetta challenged Britain, warning us to “make no mistake” about the threats posed, to both the US and Europe, by Al Qaeda affiliate terrorist groups, the continuing conflict in Afghanistan, nuclear intentions of North Korea and Iran, and the consequences of the fall of the Assad regime in Syria – which, “make no mistake”, will fall.

Panetta also paid considerable attention to the “fiscal austerity in full force on both sides of the Atantic”. He seemed worried about the implications of defence spending cuts (as high as 20%) in most European countries over the past couple of years. The US is facing similar hurdles, required to meet $487 billion in budget reductions over the next ten years.  Not only did Panetta stress that the new US Defence Strategy of last year shall seek to invest in a leaner, more agile force, developing fields such as intelligence, space, cyber capabilities and special operations in order to make up for reductions. He confidently asserted that the US must remain the strongest military force in the world.  He also emphasised that no one state can meet these threats alone, and so alliances must move beyond the cold war frame work and modernise into a flexible and rotational model. Duplication is no longer necessary, and “the time has come to share”.

One of  Panetta’s biggest fears is the cyber threat that could cripple our economies and infrastructure instantaneously. Thus  NATO must develop a role within cyber defence.  Lastly, Panetta boldly asserted that Europe should not worry about the US turning away from us in its “pivot” towards Asia- rather, we should join them in developing new regional partners.

The message that I found most harrowing in Panetta’s speech was his observation that he will probably be the last US Secretary of Defence to have direct memories of the Second World War.  This really is a new generation, a dawn.

Although a cynic might interpret Panetta’s calls for collaboration, quoting Churchill’s assertion that ” our friendship is the rock on which to build the future of the world”, as mere rhetoric for the declining US ability to act alone.  But the bleak reality is that gone are the days where we can afford to pick and choose our allies – we must strive to foster defence friendships throughout the world if we are to prevent sinking in today’s sea of fiscal austerity and unpredictable threats.  I am inclined to agree with Panetta’s strong, but still positive, challenge to Europe to adapt to the reality of the 21st Century.

Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq

by

By Amelie Sundberg

Untitled-1
Rampton, Sheldon and Stauber, John, Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq (Hodder Headline, Australia, 2003)

Amazon, Paperback New from £4.99

 

For those of you Chomsky-haters, do not be deterred by his praise for Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber’s bold work, ‘Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq’.  This is a refreshing eye-opener into the Bush administration’s ‘public relations’ campaign following the 9/11 attacks and the ensuing War on Terror, particularly the US invasion of Iraq 2003.  I have already used a couple of the scandalous propaganda stories to spice up a few lagging dinner conversations over the holidays.

The authors collect convincing evidence to answer questions surrounding notorious war reporting that has been suspected of US propaganda. The first chapter conjures up the vivid scene of Kuwaitis waving US flags after their ‘liberation’ that dominated the US press in 1991, and quickly moves on to point out that US soldiers handed out these flags, effectively staging the famous photographs. Similarly, the authors question the objectivity of the widely circulated images of Iraqis pulling down the statue of Saddam Hussein – only around 200 people took part and Reuters long shot images show that the rest of the square was empty.  So much for the Washington Post’s headline, “Iraqis Celebrate in Baghdad.”

The book’s strongest selling point is how it details the corporate edge to the administrations PR campaign post-9/11; blaming this business-like approach for losing the ‘battle for hearts and minds’ in the War on Terror. Charlotte Beers, former executive for a corporate advertising firm was appointed undersecretary for state for public diplomacy.  The book paints a good picture of the disconnected attempts to ‘sell’ the US to the Middle Eastern ‘consumers’.  It is doubtful that US officials trying to persuade local editors in the Middle East to publish positive stories would ever soothe anti-US sentiment or that simply dropping leaflets would divide the Taliban.  Unsurprisingly, promoting the message of US freedom clashed with previous US policies of support for repressive regimes, such as Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.  Interestingly, the Iraq Public Diplomacy Group (set up by the US) coached anti-Saddam Iraqis to look good on talk shows and write opinion pieces as early as 2002.   Fabricated stories were also used, such as when a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl falsely told of the story of Iraqi solders pulling hundreds of premature Kuwaiti babes from their incubators.  This was published in a press release by Hill & Knowlton (then the world’s largest PR firm) in their ‘Citizens for a Free Kuwait’ campaign.

Rather, ‘shared value’ television advertisements featuring attractive American Muslims going about their daily lives were much more successful as ‘perception management’ tools on the home front.  Such shows reinforced the US population’s trust in an accepting and ‘free’ US.  Propaganda was so successful that as a result of the Pentagon’s attempts to foster support for the invasion of Iraq, an astounding 66% of US citizens believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11.  Further ‘newspeak’ helped to rally the population around the flag.  For example, the phrase ‘axis of evil’ was reminiscent of the axis powers during WWII and ‘coalition of the willing’ misleadingly implied that there was enthusiastic support for the war in Iraq beyond that of the US and the UK.  Television news coverage of the war was accompanied by patriotic music such as drumbeats, images of the American flag, maps, graphics and constant banners declaring the ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’.  The politician Jesse Ventura said that the phenomenon reminded him of the Super Bowl.

One of the key scenes that I will take with me from this book is the description of a reporter asking then US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, whether he lied after 9/11 to encourage support for the war effort.  Asking not to be quoted, he responded by quoting Churchill: “sometimes the truth is so precious it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies.”

‘Weapons of Mass Deception’ is definitely selective and overtly seeks to cast the Bush administration in a bad light.  Some would argue that in so doing, the book is hypocritical by itself propagating a strong anti-Bush message.  But let’s be realistic, any book that hopes to act as an exposé has to be presented in this manner – in my view this does not undermine the validity of the arguments being made.

Considering our daily dependence on news I think a fresh dose of re-examining the role of the press is healthy – just read it a pinch of salt.  If any of you are cynics like me, this is great read; well researched and offering more than just conspiracy theories.