Report fuels debate over Egypt aid

From correspondents in Washington
The Daily Telegraph (UK)
May 13, 2006

A CONGRESSIONAL report released overnight has raised questions about the value of US military aid to Egypt, fuelling a debate about assistance to one of Washington's key Middle East allies.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report came at a time when the administration and some lawmakers have expressed growing displeasure over Cairo's democratic backsliding and raised the prospect of aid cuts.

Congress's watchdog agency did not touch on human rights considerations but complained that from a technical point of view there was no way of assessing whether the military funding was being used effectively.

Egypt, a leading recipient of US economic and military aid, has received more than $US60 billion since 1979, including $US34 billion in foreign military financing (FMF) credits to buy US materiel and services.

But the GAO said, "Although officials and several experts assert that the FMF program to Egypt supports US foreign policy and security goals, State and DOD (Department of Defence) do not assess how the program specifically contributes to these goals."

It said maintaining Egyptian-Israeli peace, assuring access to the Suez Canal, support for humanitarian efforts in Sudan's blood-stained Darfur region and help in training Iraqi security forces were all valid strategic aims.

But although Egypt has used the aid to buy Apache helicopters, F-16 aircraft and M1A1 tanks, the GAO complained the Pentagon lacked ways of gauging progress in assuring interoperability of equipment and modernizing the force.

"Without a common definition ... it is difficult to measure the extent of current and desired levels of interoperability," the report said.

"Nor is it clear how the Egyptian military has been or could be transformed into the modern, interoperable force articulated in the US goals for the Egypt FMF program."

The GAO recommended that the secretaries of state and defence study the impact of possible changes in future FMF grants and conduct periodic reviews of the program, defining benchmarks and targets.

The report came out a day after the State Department said it was "deeply concerned" by the latest police crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Egypt and suggested Cairo's slow pace of reforms could affect its US aid.

The United States had already taken President Hosni Mubarak's government to task over the conduct of recent elections, the detention of leading opposition leader Ayman Nur and a move to extend emergency laws for two years.

"We have noted our serious concern about the path of political reform and democracy in Egypt," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said after Thursday's incidents.

Officials said that while the US administration did not back cutting the $US2 billion in annual economic and military assistance provided to Egypt, Congress might react.

"They got the vote and there is a lot of discussion up on Capitol Hill right now about this very issue," said a senior State Department official, who asked not to be named.

"Foreign governments also need to understand the relationship between the legislative and the executive and the role of the legislative in apportioning funding for these kind of programs," Mr McCormack said.

Two Die In Sectarian Iraqi Army Clash

Washington Post
May 13, 2006

BAGHDAD -- An armed confrontation between two Iraqi army units left one soldier and one civilian dead Friday, raising questions about the U.S.-trained force's ability to maintain control at a time when sectarian and ethnic tensions are running high.

The incident near Duluiyah, about 45 miles north of Baghdad, illustrates the command and control problems facing the new Iraqi army, which the United States hopes can take over security in most of the country by year's end. It also shows that divisions within the military mirror those in Iraqi society.

The trouble started when a roadside bomb struck an Iraqi army convoy, which police said was made up of Kurdish soldiers. Four soldiers were killed and three wounded, police said. U.S. military officials put the figures at one dead and 12 wounded.

The wounded were rushed to civilian Balad Hospital. Police said that as the Kurdish soldiers drove to the hospital, they fired weapons to clear the way, and one Iraqi Shiite civilian was killed.

Shiite soldiers from another Iraqi unit based in Balad rushed to the scene, and the Kurds decided to take their wounded elsewhere, Iraqi police said. Iraqi troops tried to stop them and shots were fired, killing one Shiite soldier, Iraqi police said.

A third Iraqi army unit set up a roadblock in the area and stopped the soldiers who were leaving with their wounded, the U.S. military said. American troops intervened and calmed the situation.

The Iraqi army is investigating the incident.

Pakistan's Ex-Army Chief: If Attacked, 'Hit Israel'

Miami Herald
May 13, 2006

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- Pakistan's former army chief says Iranian officials came to him for advice on heading off an attack on their nuclear facilities, and he in effect advised them to take a hostage -- Israel.

Retired Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg said he suggested their government ``make it clear that if anything happens to Iran, if anyone attacks it -- it doesn't matter who it is or how it is attacked -- that Iran's answer will be to hit Israel; the only target will be Israel.''

Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani, an Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander, was quoted last week as saying that if ''America does make any mischief, the first place we target will be Israel.'' The threat was disavowed the next day by Brig. Gen. Alireza Afshar, deputy to the chief of Iran's military staff, who said it was Dehghani's ``personal view and has no validity as far as the Iranian military officials are concerned.''

And on Tuesday, Israel's vice premier, Shimon Peres, warned that ``those who threaten to destroy are in danger of being destroyed.''

In the AP interview that took place several weeks before these threats were exchanged, Beg said a delegation from the Iranian Embassy in Pakistan had come to his office in January, seeking advice as Western pressure mounted on Iran to abandon its nuclear effort. Beg said he offered lessons learned from his experience dealing with India's nuclear threat.

Criteria For Assessing Aid To Egypt Lacking, Study Says

By Bradley Graham, Washington Post Staff Writer
Washington Post
May 13, 2006

Although Egypt has been a top recipient of U.S. military aid for more than two decades, the Pentagon and the State Department still lack specific measures for assessing the effectiveness of the billions of dollars being spent on Egyptian armed forces, according to a U.S. government study issued yesterday.

The study, by the Government Accountability Office, is particularly critical of an absence of U.S. benchmarks for judging how well the aid has modernized Egyptian forces and improved their ability to operate with the U.S. military.

Since the 1979 Camp David peace accords, Egypt has received about $34 billion in U.S. military assistance, making it second only to Israel among recipients of such aid. It continues to absorb $1.3 billion a year, or about a quarter of all U.S. foreign military assistance.

The money, which accounts for about 80 percent of Egypt's military procurement budget, has gone largely toward replacing old Soviet weaponry with U.S. equipment. Just over half of Egypt's military inventory is now U.S.-made, with Egypt's goal being to reach 66 percent by 2020.

U.S. officials justify the big aid program as important in shoring up Egypt as a key Arab ally and in contributing to stability in the Middle East. The flow of assistance is credited with ensuring expedited transit for U.S. ships through the Suez Canal and for U.S. planes through Egyptian airspace.

It is also said by U.S. officials to have encouraged Egyptian support for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan. And it has enabled Egyptian forces to function more smoothly with U.S. forces -- a condition that military officials call "interoperability."

But the GAO report says the Pentagon has not defined its expectations for Egyptian military modernization or interoperability, beyond an increase in the ratio of U.S. to Soviet equipment in Egypt's inventory.

"We recommend that the agencies define the current and desired levels of modernization and interoperability the United States would like to achieve," the study says. "This should include establishing benchmarks and targets for these and other goals."

In responses attached to the study, the Pentagon deferred to the State Department, which oversees foreign military assistance programs. State said it will work with the Pentagon to come up with better criteria for assessing Egypt's modernization goals, but it added that specifying interoperability targets will be more problematic. While acknowledging the importance of quantitative measures, State noted that the "qualitative benefits" of the assistance "are perhaps more critical."

The study was requested by Rep. Tom Lantos (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee. Lantos has led an unsuccessful two-year effort to shift some of the military aid to Egypt into economic and political development assistance.

"The GAO study proves what we have long suspected: the Egypt [military aid] program is meant more as a political entitlement program, with no real performance standards," Lantos said in a statement yesterday. "This is a massive military entitlement program on auto-pilot."

He noted that much of the military aid has gone toward financing the acquisition of conventional equipment, such as tanks and F-16 fighter jets, even as the conventional military threat to Egypt has evaporated.

In Egypt, an Old Beacon of Tolerance Flickers

Fatal Stabbings Underline Growing Sectarian Tensions in Historic Port City of Alexandria
By Daniel Williams
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, May 13, 2006; A10

ALEXANDRIA, Egypt -- This ancient port city clings to a self-proclaimed myth of urban tolerance as stubbornly as barnacles adhere to its harbor breakwaters. Ask anyone idling on the waterfront drive what Alexandria is like, and the answer will be that everyone gets along here, that the city is neither narrow-minded, like villages in Egypt's far south, nor coldly anonymous, like Cairo.

Alexandria's tolerance stems, residents say, from the city's earliest days. When Alexander the Great founded a Greek settlement on Africa's shore in 332 B.C., it merged cultures from north and south, east and west, quickly growing into a place that welcomed travelers, traders and refugees from all over the Mediterranean region. But last month, a 2,300-year-old reputation was undermined, perhaps fatally, by a dagger stroke.

On April 14, a man with a knife drove to three Coptic Christian churches here and stabbed several worshipers, killing an elderly man, Nushi Atta Girgis, on the steps of Saints Church. The attacker was a Muslim, and the assault ignited three days of sectarian street fighting. It was not Egypt's gravest outbreak of Christian-Muslim violence: Worse rioting took place last fall when Muslims protested a play about a Christian convert to Islam who switches back. But the stabbing set off public alarm because there was no apparent trigger for the attacks and because Egypt had looked to Alexandria as a model of tolerance.

"There has been an acceleration of conflict, and that is worrisome," said Sameh Naguib, a democracy activist and expert in economic development. "There is a kind of national agitation going on, and the unpredictability of it all is cause for concern. It's especially unfortunate that it should happen in Alexandria. It shatters an ideal that is particularly needed in Egypt: the ideal that we all can live together in peace."

Cosmopolitan Alexandria was once one of the Mediterranean's most easygoing cities, home to Greeks, Armenians, Italians, Jews, Arabs, Turks and many others. A major seaport, Alexandria attracted artists, poets and writers. Egypt's best-known film director, Youssef Chahine, had long held up his native city as a national exemplar. In his 2004 movie, "Alexandria . . . New York," the lead character praised Alexandria as a symbol of tolerance.

The city's reputation as a beacon of cordiality extended throughout the Middle East. When news spread of last month's knife attacks, a Saudi writer for the London-based Asharq al-Awsat newspaper asked "Alexandria that overlooks the wide sea" a pointed question: "Have the ships of love left?"

Yet the city's celebrated tolerance has been more legend than reality for 50 years. An exclusionist Arab nationalism, combined with anti-foreign sentiment nourished by the 1956 Suez War and the 1967 Middle East war with Israel, gradually drained the city of its cosmopolitan populace and character. Almost all that remained was a kind of archaeology of sophistication. The faded Cecil Hotel, with its cafes and wrought-iron elevator, sits on the waterfront drive still known by its French name, the Corniche. Ruined palaces of aristocrats crumble in their lush gardens. Nearly empty churches -- Greek and Armenian Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican -- nestle among a forest of minarets and mosques. The old synagogue sits under guard, unused.

The mix of Muslims and Christians was Alexandria's last live exhibit of true urban variety. Now, sectarian hostility is palpably on the rise. It is rare for a foreigner to run into a Copt and not hear expressions of deep-seated fear of and complaints about Muslims, or to converse with a Muslim and not hear that Copts are privileged.

Maher Atta, son of the man who was fatally stabbed in April, recalls a time when Muslim and Christian families would visit during each other's festivals, celebrate each other's weddings and attend the same entertainments. That is all coming to an end, he said.

"People see on TV preachers saying bad things about each other's religions," Atta said. "They see people burning churches in Pakistan or blowing up mosques in Iraq, and they feel hostility." he said. On the wall of his apartment hung icons of the Virgin Mary and pictures of Coptic holy men, fixtures in Coptic homes throughout Egypt. Across the hall, a Muslim family's living room was adorned with Koranic verses, just as commonplace in Islamic households.

Atta noted that until a few years ago, religion classes in schools were taught in the context that everyone was Egyptian. Now, separate religion classes are held for Muslims and Christians. "The teachers can call the others infidel, and no one is around to challenge it," he said.

His father was attending a service at Saints Church when he left to go to a restroom outside. A car with three men arrived, and one got out and began to stab worshipers entering and exiting the church. During Atta's funeral the next day, Copts and Muslims fought each other with sticks and swords. Christian jewelry shops were looted as police stood idly by.

The alleged killer was captured and identified as Mahmoud Salah-Eddin Abdel-Rizziq. Police said he was deranged. Maqqar Ibrahim, a priest at Saints Church, protested: "If this person is mentally ill, why is it his illness only appears when he enters a church?" The accomplices escaped.

Fakiha Zakhary, the victim's widow, concluded: "It's easy to say the killer was crazy, but it is Alexandria that is getting sick. My husband had no enemies. The enemy was hate."

Some observers blamed Alexandria's rising tensions on a long-term trend in migration. Poor people from rural areas have settled here to take jobs in the port and in the city's chemical and steel industries. Some Egyptians contend that the new arrivals have brought village-style conformity and conservative Islamic habits to Alexandria.

"There is a new element of intolerance that has been imported," said Khaled Azab, spokesperson for the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, a 3 1/2 -year-old library meant to symbolize Alexandria's rebirth as a free marketplace of ideas. He noted the large proportion of women who wear veils as a symbol of piety. "We must admit that Alexandria's notion of openness to all cultures is on the defensive," Azab said.

Indeed, some pious Muslims have redefined the city's legendary tolerance in terms of Islamic duty, not liberal ideals. "Islam says that Muslims must treat non-Muslims with respect, and even protect them," said Ali Abdellati, a shoe-store clerk. "There is no Alexandria tolerance without Muslim tolerance."

Abdellati spoke of the stabbing as an aberration. "The man must have been a non-Muslim, maybe a Jew," he said.

Political uncertainty and the erosion of tight political control in Egypt have brought divisions to the surface, observers contend. "Muslims, Christians, peasants, workers -- everybody is expressing themselves, and not always constructively," said Naguib, the activist.

"Everyone is going his own way," said Ali Abdul Fattah, a senior official of the Muslim Brotherhood, a formally banned organization that has become Egypt's largest opposition group. By all accounts, the Brotherhood is popular in Alexandria. Opponents of religion-based politics call that a symptom of the city's rising intolerance. Abdul Fattah contends that the Brotherhood has been at the forefront of fighting bias but that the government has sabotaged its efforts.

In January, the Brotherhood and a local newspaper, Voice of Arabism, sponsored a series of seminars among Muslim and Christian religious leaders, Brotherhood officials and secular residents to discuss religious rivalries and, in particular, to air Christian fears as the Brotherhood emerged as a major political force. At the third session, police ringed the newspaper's office, and a police officer said that such meetings could not be held there, said editor Reda Shabaan.

Efforts to reconvene at an Anglican church fell through when the priest received a call from police telling him to cancel. Shabaan's office lease was suddenly revoked, the editor said, and plainclothes agents began confiscating the Voice of Arabism from kiosks. Alexandria police and the office of the city governor, Abdul Salam al-Mahgoub, declined to comment on the allegations of suppression.

Shabaan and several other Egyptian commentators speculated that the government of President Hosni Mubarak nurtures civic conflict to justify its maintenance of 25-year old emergency laws inhibiting free expression and association.

"Alexandria has its problems, but the authorities don't help," Shabaan said. "Instead, they make things worse. How else can the government justify its existence but to say only it stands between Egypt and chaos?"

Protests in Egypt (2)

Protests in Egypt (1)

Police Break Up Cairo Protest

Security forces attack and arrest hundreds at a rally aimed at showing solidarity with judges facing action for alleging electoral fraud.
By Hossam Hamalawy and Megan K. Stack
Los Angeles Times
May 12, 2006

CAIRO — Thousands of cane-wielding riot police Thursday beat protesters and journalists bloody, arresting hundreds as the Egyptian government clamped down on a demonstration in support of pro-reform judges.

Police toting shields and sticks and plainclothes security officers flooded the streets of the capital in the morning, sealing off roads and closing subway stations in preparation for the protest.

As bands of chanting demonstrators attempted to coalesce into a street protest, in swarmed the riot police. Men and women were dragged over the asphalt, kicked and beaten. Many were forced into police vehicles and taken away.

Journalists attempting to cover the protest also came under attack. Among those assaulted were a Reuters photographer, a cameraman for the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera and a Los Angeles Times reporter.

"I've never seen the level of brutality I saw today," said Rabab Mahdi, 31, a political science lecturer at the American University in Cairo. The attack was the latest incident amid a general crackdown on Egypt's fledgling, grass-roots democracy movement.

Despite promises of political change and the air of relative liberty that gripped the country last year, President Hosni Mubarak's regime now appears keen to silence — or at least quiet — dissent.

Dozens of opposition figures, including activists from the semi-underground Muslim Brotherhood and leftist groups, have been rounded up and jailed. More than 50 pro-democracy activists are being held in the notorious Tora Prison, south of Cairo. They include prominent blogger Alaa Seif al-Islam, whose website has been publishing strident anti-Mubarak writings and photographs. About 40 of the inmates are said to be on a hunger strike to protest the prison conditions.

The Egyptian government has also postponed for two years local elections that were to be held in April. And it has renewed its controversial emergency law, imposed when Mubarak took power in 1981, which allows for arbitrary arrest and detention without charge. Lifting of the emergency law was a key promise in Mubarak's election campaign last year.

Attempts to reach Egyptian officials for comment on Thursday's violence were unsuccessful.

In Washington, the State Department criticized the Egyptian government's actions.

"We are deeply concerned by reports of Egyptian government arrests and repression of demonstrators protesting election fraud and calling for an independent judiciary," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. "Particularly troubling are reports of Egyptian police tactics against demonstrators and journalists covering the event that left many injured.

"We urge the Egyptian government to permit peaceful demonstrations on behalf of reform and civil liberties by those exercising their rights to freedom of assembly and expression."

The demonstration was planned as a show of solidarity for two key leaders among Egypt's judges who have been pressing for judicial reform. Judges Hesham Bastawisi and Mahmoud Mekki have been accused of defaming the government after publicly alleging fraud and abuse during last fall's parliamentary elections. The two, who serve on the Court of Cassation, the highest appellate court, were scheduled to appear before a disciplinary tribunal Thursday, but both refused to attend after their lawyers and supporters were barred from entering.

"Never has the judiciary been insulted, humiliated and stepped on in the history of Egypt before," Bastawisi said Thursday in a telephone interview. "The government has lost all the respect it had. The Egyptian citizen is being dragged in the streets by security as if they were animals, not human beings."

The judges represent just one facet of the antigovernment movement, a varied assemblage of critics that includes secular figures as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. The vastly popular Islamist party controls about a fifth of the Egyptian parliament despite its status as an officially banned group.

Brotherhood officials said that about 300 of their members had been detained during Thursday's demonstration.

The judges' battle has been one of the most public struggles in the ongoing fight for democratic changes in Egypt. Last year, hundreds of judges stood up to the regime, threatening to refuse to certify election results unless they were granted full control over the polling stations. The jurists also demanded financial independence from the Justice Ministry, which they accused of buying judicial favor in exchange for perks and cash bonuses.

Bastawisi and Mekki have resisted attempts to discipline them. The pair, along with dozens of judges who support them, have been staging a sit-in at a judges' association in downtown Cairo to protest the government's actions. A delegation of university professors that tried to visit the judges this week to show solidarity said its members were attacked by security personnel.

The two judges said they would not appear before the disciplinary tribunal. They are demanding the release of political detainees, as well as the removal of security troops from downtown Cairo.

"There will be no compromise with the government," Bastawisi said. "They have to reform."

Egypt Police Beat Pro-Democracy Marchers

Riot Police Beat Pro-Democracy Marchers to Break Up Demonstration in Egypt
By NADIA ABOU
The Associated Press
5/12/2006

CAIRO, Egypt - Thousands of Egyptian riot police beat pro-democracy activists Thursday, chasing and dragging them through the streets to break up a demonstration in support of judges who blew the whistle on election fraud.

The violence appeared to signal a tough new zero tolerance stance by the government toward protests demanding reform and expressing discontent that President Hosni Mubarak has backed off promises of democratic change.

The State Department said it was "deeply concerned" about the police assault on protesters and would raise the matter with the government.

"We urge the Egyptian government to permit peaceful demonstrations on behalf of reform and civil liberties," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters at the State Department's daily briefing.

The protests were called to support two judges from Egypt's highest court who have become heroes of the democracy movement after they went public with allegations of fraud during parliamentary elections last year.

The judges, Hisham el-Bastiwisy and Mahmoud Mekki, have been ordered before a court panel for possible disciplinary action. But they boycotted their hearing Thursday to protest the treatment of the demonstrators and the session was postponed until May 18.

"This is not a trial, this is a scandal," el-Bastiwisy told The Associated Press. "All those troops are not for our trial, it's because they are afraid of the nation. They are beating people up like mad in the streets."

Hundreds of protesters who turned out for the scheduled hearing were met by a massive security force, with lines of riot police wielding long sticks and cordoning off streets around the court in downtown Cairo.

Uniformed police chased protesters through the streets, grabbing them and beating some before dragging them toward waiting trucks or into nearby buildings.

Dozens were arrested, police officials said, without giving precise numbers.

"This is what the regime is doing to us ... we are victims and strangers in our homeland," one protester, Hafez el-Fergani, shouted before police chased after him.

Police pulled an elderly woman by her arms, trying to drag her into a police van. When she resisted, the policemen tore the front of her robe, throwing her sprawled on the pavement with her underclothes exposed, said a witness, activist Bothaina Kamel. Other witnesses reported police pulling women activists and journalists by the hair.

Nearby, police beat a man with sticks, then kicked him after he fell to the pavement, Kamel told the AP.

In one square, about 50 protesters chanted slogans and held banners in support of the judges when nearly 200 plainclothes policemen swarmed in and chased the activists, punching those they could reach, witnesses said.

Police beat a cameraman for Al-Jazeera television in his face and confiscated his camera and tape, said Lina el-Ghadban, an Al-Jazeera reporter. The police smashed the camera of a Reuters photographer and pushed and shoved a Reuters TV cameraman, then dragged him on the ground and confiscated his camera, Reuters reported.

An AP reporter who was covering the protest was pushed to the ground and stepped on by uniformed police who surged through the crowd to chase protesters.

While most protesters were secular activists, police arrested 120 members of the opposition Muslim Brotherhood during a rally at a mosque in solidarity with the judges, the Brotherhood said on its Web site. The Web site's director, Abdel Gelil el-Sharnoubi, told the AP about 300 Brotherhood members had been detained across the country, including those arrested in Cairo. The police did not confirm those figures.

Police had already arrested 48 pro-reform activists since putting down similar protests during the first session of the judges' hearing April 27.

The tough response comes as the government faces worries on several fronts. Security fears have increased after an April 24 bombing in the Sinai tourist resort of Dahab killed 21 people the third terror attack on a resort in two years. And the government has faced political pressure from the Muslim Brotherhood.

In early 2005, police allowed pro-democracy demonstrators to carry out an unprecedented campaign of street rallies calling for change.

Soon after, Mubarak allowed the country's first multi-candidate presidential elections. He easily won re-election, but promised further changes in a country he has ruled unchallenged for more than a quarter century.

But parliamentary elections in November and December were marred by violence that killed 14 people, and security forces in many cases barricaded polling sites to prevent opposition supporters from voting.

Still, the Muslim Brotherhood was able to increase its presence in parliament six-fold to 88 seats making them the country's strongest opposition movement. Since then, the government has put off local elections for two years, apparently for fear of further gains.

Last month, the government renewed emergency laws that it had promised to lift, a longtime demand of human rights groups because the laws give security forces broad powers of arrest.

Police Beat Crowds Backing Egypt's Judges

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN and MONA EL-NAGGAR
The New York Times
May 12, 2006

CAIRO, May 11 — President Hosni Mubarak's government dispatched thousands of riot police officers into the center of the city on Thursday to silence demonstrators intent on showing support for judges demanding independence from the president.

The police clubbed men and women trying to demonstrate as well as half a dozen journalists.

"This is a farce in every meaning of the word," said Salah Zidan, a lawyer involved in pressing for more freedoms. "There has never been anything like this: that someone should express his opinion is committing a crime."

The police also blocked streets and subway stations, disrupting the lives of thousands of residents and workers. Officers sealed off the Judges Club, a stately building that has become a kind of headquarters for people calling for more democracy.

"I am just trying to go to work," said Fatma Shoeib, a lawyer who could not get to her office because of the police blockade. "But we are witnessing a farce. We are in a police state; this cannot be a state of law."

After small steps last year toward greater political freedom, Mr. Mubarak's government stopped when it came to Egypt's nearly 7,000 judges, who have called not only for independence, but also for the right to be the sole monitor of elections. The judges say the system is corrupt at least in part because the justice minister, appointed by the president, oversees the judiciary.

Two of Egypt's most senior judges, Mahmoud Mekki and Hisham Bastawisi, were to appear Thursday in the High Court to face disciplinary proceedings for publicly charging electoral fraud during parliamentary elections late last year. But the proceedings were postponed after the two judges refused to enter the court amid a huge contingent of riot police officers. Security forces also refused to admit the judges' supporters to the chamber.

Government officials have said the judges have adequate independence and security decisions are made to protect people and property. The government's chief spokesman could not be reached for comment. The case of Judge Mekki and Judge Bastawisi, and the drive for independence from Mr. Mubarak's oversight, have become a flash point and a rallying point in the push to bring democratic changes to a system where one party has a monopoly on power and all major decisions are made by the president, or his appointees.

With Egypt's political opposition parties impotent and ineffectual, professional organizations, like those formed by the judges and university professors, have emerged as the forces pressing for change. The Muslim Brotherhood, which is illegal but tolerated, remains the nation's most organized opposition group.

Last December, for the first time, the government tolerated protesters chanting anti-Mubarak slogans. But it has shown no tolerance for protesters backing the judges. That has put the United States, which considers Egypt one of its closest allies in the region and gives it nearly $2 billion annually in aid, in an awkward position. But, faced with huge challenges in the region — from Iran to Sudan — the United States has appeared to back off on putting pressure on Egypt over its domestic policies.

The State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, issued a statement about Thursday's violence. "We are deeply concerned by reports of Egyptian government arrests and repression of demonstrators protesting election fraud and calling for an independent judiciary," it said. "Particularly troubling are reports of Egyptian police tactics against demonstrators and journalists covering the event that left many injured."

The statement urged Egypt to permit peaceful demonstrations on behalf of reform and civil liberties and said the United States would raise its concerns with the Egyptian government. In the last week, the authorities have detained about 50 demonstrators outside the Judges Club, for showing support for the judges' cause. Some have been charged with "insulting the president."

"The regime is sending a message saying, 'Everyone will bow down and prostrate and shut up, and there will be no other voice but me,' " Hazem Farouq Mansour, a member of Parliament affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, said Thursday in an interview at the scene of the demonstrations. "They think that the judges have empowered the people against the regime in the elections. And the status of the judge in the eyes of the Egyptian citizen is very high. This is no doubt terrifying the authorities."

From early Thursday morning, huge green troop carriers rumbled into the center of the town. People who planned to demonstrate were at first unable to gather, and as they tried to find a way to regroup, it was mostly regular Egyptians trying to go about their lives who confronted the police over the blockade.

"How can you block the way like this," Saneya Mohamed, a poor woman from the countryside who was trying to get into the court to help her son meet a lawyer, screamed at the wall of police before her. "I swear it is the people running this country that have destroyed it like this."

At times, small groups of protesters organized at the edge of the police barrier but were beaten and dragged away. At least six journalists were said to have been detained, and Al Jazeera said its cameraman had been severely beaten.

Ten riot police officers were killed Thursday when their van fell off a bridge as they drove toward the center of the city, officials said.

"We are coming to say that the regime is prohibiting freedom in the country," said Hafez el-Fergany, a demonstrator who said he was an Islamist. "We are coming to support the judges. This is an issue that concerns every Egyptian, from all the different factions in Egypt. This is our country, and we feel like we're outsiders in it."

Darfur Needs U.N. Peacekeepers Now

Editorial
The New York Times
May 11, 2006

The events of the last week demonstrate just how critical it is to get a well-armed and well-trained United Nations peacekeeping force on the ground in the Darfur region of Sudan. President Bush is right to press the U.N. to expedite the deployment of soldiers to take over the role currently performed by an ineffectual African Union force. If the United Nations is to have any hope of repairing its tattered image around the world — particularly in America — its diplomats must quickly eliminate any bureaucratic hurdles in the way of a peacekeeping mission.

The Security Council agreed in February to plan to replace some 7,000 African Union soldiers with U.N. forces. But when the Sudanese government objected, the planning for a peacekeeping force stopped.

Meanwhile, the genocide has spread, as Arab militias who call themselves the janjaweed and are backed by the government of Sudan have continued to raid villages in Darfur, and now villages across the border in Chad as well. More than 200,000 men, women and children have been slaughtered in this conflict, and women in refugee camps are routinely raped as they do simple chores like fetching water.

A peace deal reached last week between the government of Sudan and the largest rebel group is a good first step. But that deal is utterly meaningless without a strong U.N. force on the ground to back it up.

Any doubt of that should have been dispelled on Monday, when a tour of a Darfur refugee camp by Jan Egeland, the U.N.'s top humanitarian official, was followed by riots. The refugees attacked an aid worker in Mr. Egeland's entourage, believing that he was in the janjaweed. The aid worker escaped, but rioters later turned on a translator with the African Union force and hacked him to death. This is yet another reminder of the ineffectiveness of the African Union force: it was unable to protect its own translator from enraged refugees, just as it has been unable to protect refugees from the janjaweed.

Sudan's government has indicated that with the peace deal now signed, it no longer objects to the deployment of a U.N. force. Diplomats should take this and run with it, straight to Darfur with a contingent of at least 20,000 well-armed multinational soldiers, from both Arab and African countries. The negotiations are over, and the peace deal is in effect. Now is the time for action.

Stop coddling despots

If Bush is serious about ending tyranny, he'll crack down on Mubarak and his ilk.
Max Boot
Los Angeles Times
May 10, 2006

DURING HIS first four years in office, President Bush made impressive strides toward achieving the improbable goal laid out in his second inaugural address — "ending tyranny in our world." American troops liberated 50 million people and midwived representative governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States also provided important support to peaceful uprisings in Ukraine, Georgia, Lebanon and Kyrgyzstan.

The ripples of those revolutions reverberated throughout the greater Middle East, long the major breeding ground of anti-Western terrorism. At a minimum, tyrants felt compelled to pay lip service to American demands that they curtail support for terrorism and show greater respect for human rights. Syria's Bashar Assad pulled his occupation army out of Lebanon; Hosni Mubarak promised to hold genuine electoral contests in Egypt; the Saudi royal family deigned to hold elections for municipal councils.

In the last year, however, the global momentum for democratization has palpably slowed and in some places reversed course altogether. Vladimir V. Putin has crushed all competing centers of power in Russia. Belarus, the only other dictatorship left in Europe, held fraudulent elections that confirmed Alexander G. Lukashenko's death grip on power. The same thing happened in Kazakhstan, where president-for-life Nursultan A. Nazarbayev claimed to have won more than 90% of the vote. Next door in Uzbekistan, security forces gunned down hundreds of unarmed protesters in the city of Andijan and then tried to cover up the massacre.

The same worrisome trend is observable in the Middle East. The Iranian ayatollahs have stepped up their campaign of torturing, jailing and executing dissidents. The Assad regime has arrested more opposition figures at home and continues to intimidate anti-Syrian activists in Lebanon. And, most glaring of all, modern-day pharaoh Mubarak has imprisoned his leading liberal opponent and renewed the draconian "emergency law" that allows indefinite detention of anyone who challenges his rule.

What's going on? Well, no one — not even Bush — ever said that the course of liberty would be smooth and easy. Entrenched elites have an obvious incentive to resist giving up power, and they now feel free to do so because they think that Bush, a lame-duck president with approval ratings in the low 30s, is too feeble to resist.

The despots reckon, not without reason, that they can simply wait out the current occupant of the White House. They know that the odds of vigorous action from the United States are slim given how many U.S. troops are tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq. The continuing turmoil in Iraq and Hamas' takeover of the Palestinian Authority — signs of the supposed dangers of too much freedom — provide further pretexts for repression.

In his remaining 986 days in office, Bush has a choice: Either he can sit back and allow the resurgence of the dictators, or he can fight back with the considerable power still at his command. His recent decision to grant a coveted White House reception to Ilham Aliyev isn't a good sign because the president of oil-rich Azerbaijan blatantly rigged his nation's parliamentary elections just six months ago. If Bush wants to show that he is still serious about promoting "the expansion of freedom," he could begin by making an example of Egypt.

Mubarak is reputedly one of Washington's closest friends in the Arab world, yet he has been among the most brazen in defying Bush's demands for greater openness while force-feeding his 78 million subjects a steady diet of anti-American and anti-Semitic drivel. His vow to hold multiparty presidential elections produced a suspect ballot last fall in which he secured 88% of a feeble turnout. Afterward, he consigned his chief challenger, Ayman Nour, to five years' hard labor on trumped-up charges of forging signatures to qualify for the ballot. The subsequent parliamentary election was even more dubious; ruling party goons used violence and fraud to keep the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition group, from winning too many seats. Now Mubarak's minions are roughing up peaceful demonstrators who support brave judges in their demand for greater independence and less electoral fraud.

Why, oh why, is this repugnant regime still getting $2 billion a year in American subsidies? Take the money away from Mubarak and give it to democracy-promotion programs across the Middle East. That would be a shot heard 'round the world. Failing such a signal, the dictators will become bolder and more brazen in defying what Bush once called "the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity."

The Native Orientalists

The Muslims America Loves
By M. SHAHID ALAM
CounterPunch
May 9, 2006

Being a Muslim today--in the middle of America's 'war against global terrorism'--carries some new hazards. But it is not without its bright side for a few Muslims who are eager to profit from this war.

Muslims need little tutoring in the hazards they now face. Many tens of thousands are already dead in wars imposed by the United States--on Iraq and Afghanistan. The death toll is expected to climb, perhaps steeply, as these wars are carried to Iran, Syria or Pakistan. Iranians also face the prospect--perhaps, imminent--of incineration in nuclear strikes.

Death or dislocation in wars are not the only hazards that confront Muslims. In principle, any Muslim can also become the object of 'extraordinary renditions.' No matter where they happen to be, they could be kidnapped by the CIA, hooded, and transported to secret offshore US prisons, or delivered into the hands of US-friendly regimes with expertise in the fine arts of interrogation. No one knows how many Muslims have suffered this cruel fate--or how many of them are still alive.

By comparison, Muslims who are captured or bought, and imprisoned in Guantanamo as 'enemy combatants,' are lucky. After facing down several legal challenges to these detentions, the US now brings these prisoners before military review boards. Although many of them have been cleared of any terrorist connections, it is quite touching that the US is now refusing to release them--it says--because they could be tortured by their own governments. The prisoners can now thank the US for offering sanctuary.

In fairness, America's 'war against global terrorism' has also created a few hard-to-resist opportunities. The chief beneficiaries of the new US posture are the Muslim rulers eager to get the US more firmly behind the wars they have been waging against their own people. They are happy to torture Muslims 'rendered' to them by the CIA, and, periodically, they capture their own 'terrorists' and put them on flights to Guantanamo.

The 'war against global terrorism' is also a war of ideas. In order to defeat the 'terrorists' the US must win the hearts and minds of Muslims. This is where Muslims can help. The US needs a few 'good' Muslims to persuade the 'bad' ones to reform their religion, to learn to appreciate the inestimable benefits of Pax America and Pax Israelica.

In the heyday of the old colonialism, the white man did not need any help from the natives in putting down their religion and culture. Indeed, he preferred to do it himself. Then, the opinion of the natives carried little weight with the whites anyway. So why bother to recruit them to denounce their own people. As a result, Orientalists wrote countless tomes denigrating the cultures of the lesser breeds.

Today the West needs help in putting down the uppity natives--especially the Muslims. One reason for this is that with the death of the old colonialism, some natives have begun to talk for themselves. A few are even talking back at the Orientalists raising all sorts of uncomfortable questions. This hasn't been good: and something had to be done about it. In the 1970s the West began to patronize 'natives' who were deft at putting down their own people. Was the West losing its confidence?

The demand for 'native' Orientalists was strong. The pay for such turncoats was good too. Soon a whole crop of native Orientalists arrived on the scene. Perhaps, the most distinguished members of this coterie include Nirad Chaudhuri, V. S. Naipaul, Fouad Ajami and Salman Rushdi. They are some of the best loved natives in the West.

Then there came the 'war against global terrorism' creating an instant boom in the market for Orientalists of Muslim vintage. The West now demanded Muslims who would diagnose their own problems as the West wanted to see them--as the unavoidable failings of their religion and culture. The West now demanded Muslims who would range themselves against their own people--who would denounce the just struggles of their own people as moral aberrations, as symptoms of a sick society.

So far these boom conditions have not evoked a copious supply of Muslim Orientalists. Irshad Manji has made herself the most visible na-tive Orientalist by cravenly playing to Western and Zionist demands for demonizing Muslims and Palestinians. I can think of a few others, but they have little to recommend themselves other than their mediocrity. This must be a bit disappointing for those who had pinned their hopes on using Muslim defectors to win the battle for Muslim hearts and minds.

There are some indications that this disappointment is turning to desperation. On March 11 the New York Times published a front page story on Dr. Wafa Sultan, "a largely unknown Syrian-American psychiatrist, nursing a deep anger and despair about her fellow Muslims." Deep anger and despair at fellow Muslims? Are these the new qualifications for Muslims to gain visibility in America's most prestigious newspaper?

If the only Muslims that the United States can recruit in its battle for ideas are at best mediocrities or worse--nobodies--what chance is there that it can win the battle for Muslim hearts and minds? The short answer is: very little. Muslims are not helpless children. You cannot molest them and then expect to mollify them with trifles and protestations of pure intentions. That may have worked for a while. It will not work for ever.

Muslims are too large and too dense a mass to be moved by wars. Military might could not break the spirit of Palestinians, Afghans, Bosnians, Chechens, Lebanese, Moros and Iraqis. What chance is there that wars will be more effective if applied against larger masses of Muslims?

The United States cannot expect to change Muslims unless it first thinks seriously about changing its policies towards Muslims. Americans must stop deluding themselves. Muslims do not hate their freedom: they only want that freedom for themselves. The United States and Israel seek to build their power over a mass of prostrate Muslim bodies. Stop doing that and then you will have a chance to win Muslim hearts and minds.

M. Shahid Alam is professor economics at a university in Boston.

Letter from Pres. Ahmadinejad to Pres. Bush

Mr George Bush,
President of the United States of America

For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions
that exist in the international arena -- which are being constantly debated, specially in political
forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have
prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might
bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God,

Feel obliged to respect human rights,
Present liberalism as a civilization model,
Announce one’s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs,
Make “War and Terror” his slogan,
And finally,
Work towards the establishment of a unified international community – a community which
Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern,
But at the same time,
Have countries attacked; The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on
the slight chance of the … of a … criminals in a village city, or convoy for example the entire
village, city or convey set ablaze.
Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around
one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed,
close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens
broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions
of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of
thousands of young men and women – as occupation troops – put in harms way, taken away
from family and love ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much
psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide ant those returning home suffer
depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of aliments; while some are killed and
their bodies handed of their families.


On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples
of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to
begin with.

Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the
announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was
toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy
about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the … war on Iran Saddam was
supported by the West.

Mr President,

You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can theses actions be
reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of
Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.

There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation, their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.

Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.

Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did no exist. The show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII, which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?

Mr President,

I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:

-Many thousands were killed in the process.

-Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.

-Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages

were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing
for sixty years now.
A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses
while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate
Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is
unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.

Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported?
Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH)
or liberal values?
Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and
outside Palestine – whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs

The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observes have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognise the Israeli regime, abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.

If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying “why are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?”

Mr President,

As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them -many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They dot not have faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are becoming increasingly angry with such policies.

It is not my intention to pose to many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.

Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific R&D one of the basic rights of nations.

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements being utilised for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.

Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

Mr President,

Don’t Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in fear?

The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from happening. Don’t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals – is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?

Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?

The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day, opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters supporting, the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of documents corroborates this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation, increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating their country’s progress), and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

Mr President,

September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens. Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems

– and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put on trial?

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For
some years now, the people of your country and neighbours of world trouble spots do not
have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the
survivors and the American people – who had been immensely traumatised by the attacks –
some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity – some constantly
talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to
the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?

American citizen lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in
any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be
happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and
providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?

Some believe that the hype paved the way – and was the justification – for an attack on
Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media.
In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are
established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western
media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of
WMDs. This was repeated incessantly – for the public to, finally, believe – and the ground
set for an attack on Iraq.

Will the truth not be lost in a contrive and deceptive climate?
Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned
values?
Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?

Mr President,

In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their
governments in turn are able to serve them.

The question here is “what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for
the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?”

As your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty.
Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these
problems exist – to a larger or lesser extent – in other countries as well. With these conditions
in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign – paid from the public treasury – be
explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?

What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region
and in your country. But my main contention – which I am hoping you will agree to some of
it – is:
Those in power have specific time in office, and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will
be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures.

The people will scrutinize our presidencies.
Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and
unemployment?
Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing
many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful – thus
trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs’?
Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them?
Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered
illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them?
Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats?
Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted
version of it?
Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors?
Did our administration set out to promote rational behaviour, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling
obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity
or the force of guns.
Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of
other nations, and trample on people’s rights?
And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office – to serve
the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets – or not?

Mr President,

How much longer can the world tolerate this situation?
Where will this trend lead the world to?
How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers?
How much longer will the specter of insecurity – raised from the stockpiles of weapons of
mass destruction – hunt the people of the world?

How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the
streets, and people’s houses destroyed over their heads?
Are you pleased with the current condition of the world?
Do you think present policies can continue?

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead
spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating
different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to
the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production,
development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between
disputing states and distinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts were would
the world be today? Would not your government, and people be justifiably proud?
Would not your administration’s political and economic standing have been stronger?
And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the
American governments?

Mr President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.

If prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us
today, how would they have judged such behaviour? Will we be given a role to play in the
promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be
present? Will they even accept us?

My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today
there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Moslems and millions of
people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect on
word and that is “monotheism” or belief in a single God and no other in the world.

The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on an followers of divine religions and
says: [3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and
you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught. With Him
and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then
say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran).

Mr President,

According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the
teachings of divine prophets.
“To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases.” “The
Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes
on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds.”
“The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court”
“planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of
mercy and forgiveness of sins”. “He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of
oppressors”. “He is the Compassionate, the Merciful”. “He is the recourse of the faithful and
guides them towards the light from darkness”. “He is witness to the actions of His servants”,
“He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of
righteousness and remain steadfast”. “Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a
witness to their deeds.” “A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this

We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvations. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH), and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.

We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well; [19,36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serves Him; this is the right path, Marium.

Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers.

The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has given greatness to Humans.

We again read in the Holy Book: “The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purity them from sins and pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid the rebellious.”

All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well. Divine prophets have promised: The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Haven and evildoers will meet divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives have been directly or indirectly effected by our actions.

All prophets, speak of peace and tranquillity for man – based on monotheism, justice and respect for human dignity.

Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is, monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day, we can overcome the present problems of the world – that are the result of disobedience to the Almighty and the teachings of prophets – and improve our performance?

Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and justice?

Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally respected?

Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His prophets?

Mr President,

History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted
The fate of man to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own
devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These
tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.

Can one deny the signs of change in the world today?
Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast
and come at a furious pace.

The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises
and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the wolrd
feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept
dubious policies.

The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich
and poor countries.

The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.

The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the
disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion.
The people of the world have no faith in international organisations, because their rights are
not advocated by these organisations.

Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of
humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the
sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic
systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point –
that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the
prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to
join them?”

Mr President,

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice
and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda

Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

The Perils of Engagement

Calling for talks with Iran is just cheap talk.
BY AMIR TAHERI
Wall Street Journal
May 9, 2006

Something interesting is happening with regard to the crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Slowly the blame is shifting from the mullahs to the Bush administration as the debate is redirected to tackle the hypothetical question of U.S. military action rather than the Islamic Republic's real misdeeds. "No War on Iran" placards are already appearing where "No Nukes for Iran" would make more sense.

The attempt at fabricating another "cause" with which to bash America is backed by the claim that the mullahs are behaving badly because Washington refuses to talk to them. Some of this buzz is coming from those who for years told the U.S. to let them persuade Iran to mend its ways. They include German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and his British and French colleagues in the European Union trio that negotiated with Iran for years. Preparing to throw in the towel, they now say the U.S. should "directly engage" Iran. That would enable them to hide their failures and find a pretext for blaming future setbacks on the U.S.

The "engage Iran" coalition also has advocates in the U.S. Over the past few weeks they have hammered the "engagement" theme with op-eds, TV soundbites and speeches. Some have recommended John Kennedy's "sophisticated leadership" during the Cuban missile crisis as a model for George W. Bush. The incident has entered American folklore as an example of "brilliant diplomacy," but few bother to examine the small print. The crisis, as you might recall, started when the Soviets installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, something they were committed not to do in a number of accords with the U.S. Kennedy reacted by threatening to quarantine Cuba until the missiles were removed. The Soviets ended up "flinching" and agreed to removal.

In exchange they got two things. First, the U.S. agreed never to take or assist hostile action against Castro, offering his regime life insurance. The second was to remove the Jupiter missiles installed in Turkey as part of NATO's defenses. Instead of being punished, Castro and his Soviet masters were doubly rewarded for undoing what they shouldn't have done in the first place. And Castro was free to do mischief not only in Latin America but also in Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf, often on behalf of Moscow, right up to the fall of the U.S.S.R. Applied to Iran, the "Kennedy model" would provide the mullahs, now facing mounting discontent at home, with a guarantee of safety from external pressure, allowing them to suppress their domestic opponents and intensify mischief-making abroad.

Believe it or not, the second model for engaging Iran is actually Jimmy Carter's policy towards the mullahs. Mr. Carter has called for a "diplomatic solution," and Zbigniew Brzezinski, his national security adviser, has published an op-ed blaming the Bush administration for the crisis. He writes: "Artificial deadlines, propounded most often by those who do not wish the U.S. to negotiate in earnest, are counterproductive. Name-calling and saber rattling, as well as a refusal to even consider the other side's security concerns, can be useful tactics only if the goal is to derail the negotiating process."

Let's forget that the "artificial deadlines" have been set by the IAEA and the U.N. Security Council, and that most of the "name-calling and saber rattling" has come from Tehran. But let us recall one fact that Mr. Brzezinski does not mention--that the Carter administration did "engage" with the mullahs without artificial deadlines, saber rattling and name-calling. The results for the U.S. were disastrous.

In 1979, soon after the mullahs seized power, Mr. Carter sent Ayatollah Khomeini a warm congratulatory letter. Mr. Carter's man at the U.N., a certain Andrew Young, praised Khomeini as "a 20th-century saint." Mr. Carter also tapped his closest legal advisor, the late Lloyd Cutler, as U.S. ambassador to the mullarchy.

A more dramatic show of U.S. support for the mullahs came when Mr. Brzezinski flew to Algiers to meet Khomeini's prime minister, Mehdi Bazargan. This was love at first sight--to the point where Mr. Carter approved the resumption of military supplies to Iran, even as the mullahs were executing Iranians by the thousands, including many whose only "crime" was friendship with the U.S. The Carter administration's behavior convinced the mullahs that the U.S. was a paper tiger and that it was time for the Islamic Revolution to highlight hatred of America. Mr. Carter reaped what he had sown when the mullahs sent "student" fanatics to seize the U.S. embassy compound, a clear act of war, and hold its diplomats hostage for 444 days. "The Carter administration's weakness was a direct encouragement to [anti-American] hard-liners," wrote Ibrahim Asgharzadeh, one of the hostage-takers, years later.

Mr. Brzezinski's op-ed took the title "Been There, Done That," meant as a sneering nod to events that led to the liberation of Iraq. A more apt title, however, is: "Been There, Done That, Learned Nothing"--a nod to Mr. Brzezinski's failure to learn the lessons of Iran even three decades later.

The third model for engaging Iran is the Clinton model. Beating his own drum, Bill Clinton has rejected the threat of force and called for "engaging" Iran. This is how he put it in a recent speech: "Anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this, people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak." Mr. Clinton's pseudo-Socratic method of either/or-ing issues out of existence is too well-known to merit an exposé. This time, however, Mr. Clinton did not ask enough questions. For example, he might have asked: What if by refusing to kill some of them today we are forced to kill many more tomorrow? Also: What if, once assured that we are not going to kill them today, they regroup and come to kill us in larger numbers? We all know the answers.

Mr. Clinton did not reveal that in 1999 he offered the mullahs "a grand bargain" under which the Islamic Republic would be recognized as the "regional power" in exchange for lip service to U.S. "interests in the Middle East." As advance payment for the "bargain" Mr. Clinton apologized for "all the wrongs that my country and culture have done" to Iran, whatever that was supposed to mean. The "bargain," had it not been vetoed by the "Supreme Guide" in Tehran, might have secured Mr. Clinton the Nobel Peace Prize he coveted, but it would have sharpened the mullahs' appetite for "exporting" revolution.

President Bush can learn from the Kennedy, Carter and Clinton models by not repeating their mistakes. What the U.S. needs is an open, honest and exhaustive debate on what to do with a regime that claims a mission to drive the U.S. out of the Middle East, wipe Israel off the map, create an Islamic superpower, and conquer the world for "The Only True Faith." The options are clear: retreat and let the Islamic Republic advance its goals; resist and risk confrontation, including military conflict; or engage the Islamic Republic in a mini-version of Cold War until, worn out, it self-destructs.

With the options clear, Messrs. Carter, Brzezinski and Clinton along with other "engagers" would have to tell us which they favor and, if they like none, what alternative they offer. Calling for talks is just cheap talk. It is important to say what the proposed talks should be about. In the meantime, talk of "constructive engagement" is sure to encourage President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's intransigence. Why should he slow down, let alone stop, when there are no bumps on the road?

Mr. Taheri is author of "L'Irak: Le Dessous Des Cartes" (Editions Complexe, 2002).

Armoured suits are 'too goofy' say US troops

By Francis Harris, in Washington
Telegraph (UK)
09/05/2006

American troops have complained that a new armoured body suit designed to be worn in Iraq makes them look "goofy".

The water-cooled "alien spacesuits" are being handed out to turret gunners in their notoriously vulnerable Humvee vehicles.



The new suit is designed to protect against roadside bombs but has had mixed reviews from soldiers

The protective suit, based on those worn by bomb disposal officers, was intended to cut spiralling casualties for one of the most dangerous jobs in modern warfare.

But some troops have complained that the armour and headgear is inelegant. Others say the water-cooling system, designed for the soaring temperatures of an Iraqi summer, regularly breaks down.

Nonetheless, the suits being tested in combat by US military police units in northern Iraq have produced good results.

Capt Larry Bergeron told the military newspaper Stars and Stripes that the armour was credited with saving the lives of three men sprayed with shrapnel from roadside bombs.

"One soldier's visor stopped a piece of shrapnel that hit dead centre," he said. "If he had not had that suit on, the effects could have been catastrophic."

Gunners on Humvees have high casualty rates. While newly-installed armour protects those inside, the gunner stands with the upper half of his body exposed, making him far more vulnerable to roadside bombs and gunfire. Others have been crushed as vehicles overturn.

But Specialist Michael Floyd, 19, said: "I am not a big fan of this thing. It is really hot and hard to move around in. I do feel safer, but only in an explosion. I would not feel safer in a rollover or in small-arms fire."

Critics say the heavy suits also restrict movement during combat.

Bush Sends Ships To Sudan For Aid

Calls out donor nations dragging feet
By Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times
Washington Times
May 9, 2006

President Bush yesterday diverted five ships to send immediate U.S. food aid to Sudan and publicly called out Canada, Japan and European nations, telling them to live up to their food-aid promises to the embattled nation.

"The United States has met our commitment, but other major donors have not come through," Mr. Bush said, adding that the World Food Program was forced last month to cut in half its rations to the African nation because those countries did not meet their commitments.

The president also praised the peace agreement reached last week between the Sudanese government and the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA), the largest rebel group in the Darfur region, but challenged the government in Khartoum to accept a U.N. peacekeeping force in that part of the country.

Mr. Bush said he is sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the United Nations today to call for a U.N. resolution for peacekeepers.

A U.N. force is operating in the southern part of the country to monitor a 2005 peace agreement, and the U.S. wants that force expanded into the Darfur region in the west. A 7,200-strong African Union peacekeeping force is in Darfur, but the U.N. force would be at least twice that size.

Darfuris felt shut out of the government in Khartoum, and, in 2003, the SLA attacked government forces. The government responded by supporting militia groups and fighting that has killed as many as 200,000. Nearly 1.8 million people have been displaced inside the country.

Sudan has given mixed signals about whether it would welcome the U.N. peacekeeping force, but Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir told Mr. Bush in a telephone call yesterday morning that his country would announce soon whether it will accept a U.N. mission. Bush administration officials said they were optimistic.

Rep. Christopher H. Smith, New Jersey Republican and chairman of the House International Relations subcommittee on Africa, global human rights and international operations, said Mr. Bush and his administration played the pivotal role in securing the peace agreement and in preventing the starvation of thousands of refugees in camps.

"The U.S. made the difference on the Darfur peace talks, more than anyone else, and a lot of it had to do with talking with the rebels, not just talking to and bashing the Bashir government," he said, crediting Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick's shuttle diplomacy.

Mr. Smith has visited some of the camps in Sudan and said aid workers told him "it was American aid, first, second and third" that enabled them to feed and care for the refugees.

Rep. Donald M. Payne of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the subcommittee, called Mr. Bush's aid announcements and pressure for a U.N. resolution solid steps, but said the peace agreement doesn't change the situation on the ground much for Darfuris.

Mr. Bush yesterday drew a distinction between the U.S. response in Sudan and comments from al Qaeda terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden, who released a tape several weeks ago attacking U.S. efforts.

"Once again, the terrorists are attempting to exploit the misery of fellow Muslims and encourage more death. Once again, America and other responsible nations are fighting misery and helping a desperate region come back to life," Mr. Bush said.

Three Iraqs Would Be One Big Problem

By ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN
Op-Ed Contributor
The New York Times
May 9, 2006

SOME pundits and politicians have been floating the idea that America consider dividing Iraq into three ethno-religious entities, saying this would not only stem the insurgency but also allow our troops an earlier exit. They are wrong: fracturing the country would not serve either Iraqi or United States interests, and would make life for average Iraqis even worse.

The first problem is that Iraq does not have a neat set of ethnic dividing lines. There has never been a meaningful census of Iraq showing exactly how its Arab Sunnis, Arab Shiites, Kurds and other factions are divided or where they live. The two elections held since the toppling of Saddam Hussein have made it clear, however, that Iraq's cities and 18 governorates all have significant minorities.

Thus any effort to divide the country along sectarian and ethnic lines would require widespread "relocations." This would probably be violent and impoverish those forced to move, leave a legacy of fear and hatred, and further delay Iraq's political and economic recovery.

Moreover, Iraq is heavily urbanized, with nearly 40 percent of the population in the multiethnic greater Baghdad and Mosul areas. We have seen in Northern Ireland and the Balkans how difficult it is to split cities, and with Iraq's centralized and failing services and impoverished economy, violence and economics cannot be separated. Deciding where Kirkuk, a key oil city, belonged would pit the Kurds against all the rest of Iraq's factions. Basra, the nation's port, is already under the sway of Shiite Islamist militias and could lose all of its secular character if the nation divided. In addition, the nation could not be partitioned without dividing the army, the security forces and the police. The regular military is largely Shiite with a significant number of Kurds. The Ministry of Interior forces are largely Shiite, and the police are hopelessly mixed with militias and local security forces that split according to local tribal, sectarian and ethnic ties. Dividing the country essentially means dividing the army and security forces and strengthening the militias — all of which would lead to more violence.

And of course, there is no way to divide Iraqi that will not set off fights over control of oil. More than 90 percent of Iraq's government revenues come from oil exports. The Sunni Arab west has no developed oil fields and thus would have no oil revenues. The Kurds want the northern oil fields, but have no legitimate claim to them and no real way to export the oil they produce (their neighbors Iran, Syria and Turkey have restive Kurdish populations of their own and thus no interest in helping Iraq's Kurds achieve self-sustaining freedom). Control of Basra would also be an issue, with various Shiite groups looking to separate and take control of the oil in the south.

Dividing Iraq would also harm regional stability and the war on terrorists. Sunni Islamist extremist groups with ties to Al Qaeda already dominate the Sunni insurgents, and division would only increase their hold over average Iraqis. And with Iraqi Sunnis cut out of oil money, Arab Sunni states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be forced to support them, if only to avoid having the Islamist extremists take over this part of Iraq.

Iran, of course, would compete for the Iraqi Shiites. The Kurds have no friends: Turkey, Iran and Syria would seek to destabilize the north and exploit the divisions between the two main Kurdish political unions. In the end, these divisions could spill over into the rest of the Middle East and the Arab world, creating a risk of local conflicts and the kind of religious tension that feeds Islamist extremism.

Washington has made serious mistakes in Iraq, and they may lead to civil war. Dividing Iraq, however, is virtually certain to make things worse. It would convey the message that America has been defeated and abandoned a nation and a people. Even if one could overlook the fact the United States effectively broke Iraq and has a responsibility to its 28 million people, it is impossible to deny that leaving behind a power vacuum in an already dangerous region is hardly a viable strategy.

Anthony H. Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the author of "The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics and Military Lessons."

Israelis warned over Sinai

Jewish Telegraphic Agency
May 9, 2006

Israeli tourists were urged to leave Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula for fear they could be kidnapped.

The Israeli government’s Counter-Terrorism Unit issued an advisory Monday against travel to Egyptian Red Sea resorts, citing “concrete” intelligence warnings of a terrorist plot to abduct Israelis.

The number of Israelis vacationing in the Sinai has dropped off sharply since the area became a target for Islamist suicide bombers over the past two years, but a hardcore group of travel afficionados remains loyal.

Israeli border officials reported that, as of noon Tuesday, no Israelis had returned from Sinai.

But they allowed that word of the travel advisory may not yet have reached the remote Red Sea resorts.

The Trials of Ayman Nour

By Joshua Muravchik
Wall Street Journal
May 8, 2006

While the million marchers in Beirut demanding Syrian exit from their country were the most dramatic symbol of last year's hopeful "Arab spring," it was the promise of presidential elections in Egypt--the political, cultural and demographic center of the Arab world--that gave the moment its weight. The year 2006, alas, has reverberated with sobering reminders--Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority--that democracy's progress in the region will be no easy thing. None of the setbacks echoes more loudly than President Hosni Mubarak's decision to take the one truly independent candidate who had the temerity to run against him and clap him in jail.

That candidate was Ayman Nour, a long-time advocate of human rights and a maverick parliamentarian. Mr. Nour pried a small opening in Egyptian politics late in 2004 when he succeeded in securing legal status for his al-Ghad (Tomorrow) Party. One of the hallmarks of Egypt's authoritarianism has been its peculiar party system. A plethora of official "opposition" parties, all of them long since suborned or neutered by the government, are formally licensed, a status which genuinely independent parties are consistently denied.

Such was the initial fate of al-Ghad, but Mr. Nour was unusually persistent. Another hallmark of Egypt's system--which is authoritarian but not totalitarian--is that the judiciary, particularly at its highest levels, has always retained some independence. So Mr. Nour doggedly used the courts to force the regime finally to grant the license. No sooner had the regime bent to Mr. Nour's legal tactics, however, than it announced his arrest.

The charge? Forgery. Its plausibility? Nil. The government alleged that Mr. Nour had faked some of the signatures on the petitions submitted to license his party. But the legally required number of signatures was 50, and al-Ghad had submitted 2,000. The government never claimed that he had faked all of them. Why would he, a lawyer by profession, have committed forgery just to boast an excess of signatures? More curious still, the government did not allege that he had carried out the forgeries himself, but rather that he had ordered them carried out by a handful of al-Ghad volunteers whom he barely knew. These men, all with shady pasts, came forward to accuse Mr. Nour.

When the case came for first hearing, one of the accusers recanted on the witness stand, declaring that he had never received or carried out any such instructions. He said he had been fed the whole story by state security agents who coerced him, by threatening to harm his family, to make false accusations. This would have been more than enough to have the case thrown out of any American court, but instead it was carried over, enabling Mr. Nour to run in the election.

It was scarcely a level playing field. No campaigning was allowed outside of the specified period of 19 days before election day. Meanwhile, and naturally, the news media, mostly government-run, were replete with daily paeans to President Mubarak. Moreover, to be eligible to vote, a citizen had to have registered almost a year in advance, before it was announced that there would be a presidential election.

Thus, Mr. Mubarak's victory was assured. But the regime was desperately eager for Mr. Nour not even to come in second, perhaps fearing that this would position him to effectively challenge Mr. Mubarak's son, Gamal, as his successor. Mr. Nour's campaign faced all manner of harassment; and Noman Gomaa, the well-known head of the Wafd Party, entered the race to divide the liberal vote. When asked why he ran, Mr. Gomaa, 72, responded with disarming frankness--the government had asked him to. But Mr. Nour was clearly Mr. Mubarak's main opponent, and he managed to run second even in the official count, which gave him 7%. (His supporters claim it was much more.)

Soon, he was hauled back before the court and convicted. The penalty for this first "offense," a "forgery" from which it was not alleged that he reaped any benefit? Five years at hard labor--an ominous sentence for a diabetic dependent on daily insulin.

Mr. Nour, however, has appealed to the court of cassation, which is known for its independence. It was this court that threw out the conviction of dissident Saad Edin Ibrahim in 2003, albeit not before Mr. Ibrahim's health had been permanently damaged by his prison conditions. Fearing that Mr. Nour's appeal will succeed, the regime has filed 19 new charges against him. Several of these are for various forms of lèse majesté. It used to be a crime to insult the king; after the monarchy was overthrown, the law was changed to apply instead to the president. Mr. Nour, in short, faces prosecution for criticizing Mr. Mubarak while campaigning against him for president.

Clouds shadow Mr. Nour's appeal, scheduled to begin on May 18. The judge named to preside is deeply enmeshed in some related political battles. A majority of Egypt's judges are in rebellion against the regime, demanding full judicial independence. Although less widely noted outside the country, this may prove to be a more important landmark on the road to democracy than last year's elections. Following the parliamentary elections, which were under the supervision of the judiciary, several judges accused others of fixing results on behalf of the regime. No action has been taken against the accused, but the accusers have summarily been stripped of immunity and are facing prosecution for "insulting" their colleagues. The judge appointed to "investigate" them (perhaps because of loyalty to the regime) is the same one who will preside at Mr. Nour's appeal. And two of his attorneys have been summoned for questioning and threatened with charges for insulting the president.

Nor is this all. Mr. Nour's most active defender and the person who keeps his party alive is his wife, Gamila Ismail. She, too, is now facing prosecution. Slender and pretty, she is accused of "assaulting" mammoth security officers on two different occasions. Last month she was also accused of writing a bad check, another tale that speaks volumes about the Egyptian system. When Mr. Nour was first imprisoned, Ismail sought to take an ad in the popular government-owned newspaper, Al Akhbar, proclaiming his innocence. The paper refused the ad on the grounds of "security," but also refused to return Ms. Ismail's check, promising to send a refund. The refund never came, and then, 13 months later, when Ms. Ismail's account balance dipped below the amount of the check apparently for the first time, suddenly Al Akhbar put it through, and it bounced. Hence, the "bad check" charges. So much for the independence of government newspapers and the privacy of the banks.

The story gets worse. This month, Mr. Nour was transferred to the prison hospital where he was placed, with too little sanitary isolation, amid patients suffering from HIV and scabies. The deputy warden issued a statement claiming, without basis, that Mr. Nour was suicidal, which he takes as a veiled threat against his life. His writings have been confiscated, including political writings and legal memoranda arguing that many aspects of his treatment violate the Egyptian constitution (including, ironically, the confiscation of his writings). At one court appearance last month, his two young teenage sons, who have joined their mother in campaigning on his behalf, were roughed up by state agents.

It is not only the Nour family that will have much at stake when his appeal is heard; so, too, will Egypt--where Mr. Mubarak, contrary to his campaign promises, has just extended the repressive emergency law--and the whole Middle East. And so, too, will the U.S., in terms of seeing democracy sprout in the region. The Egyptian government will claim that U.S. pressure regarding this case is inappropriate and pointless, on the grounds that the judicial process is independent. But if this were true, the judges would not be in rebellion. And were it true, Ayman Nour would never have been prosecuted.

Joshua Muravchik is a resident fellow at AEI.