See, I told you

Did I not say we should have extended the voting last week by a day and, perhaps, give people a holiday? (No, wait, that is a bad idea as it would not encourage anyone to vote.) The Egyptians did it and what happened? Turn-out went up to 44.4 per cent and still former General, soon to be President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is dissatisfied. Apparently he wanted 80 per cent of the vote. Not 99.8 per cent, which would be the required minimum in some countries but what would he think about the turn-out in various EU member states? Pathetic, that is what he would think, I am sure.

Anyway, regardless of all that, soon to be President Sisi is heading for a landslide victory of either 91.8 per cent or 93.4 per cent.

Perhaps we should have tried this

Daily e-mail brief from Foreign Policy informs me that:

Egypt's election commission extended voting into a third day as low voter turnout is preventing former General Abdullah Fattah al-Sisi, who is forecast to win the presidency, from attaining the broad mandate and legitimacy he is seeking. The commission said the extension was in response to a "large" number of citizens who weren't able to make it to polling stations due to a heat wave in Egypt. However, turnout remained low on Wednesday, suggesting a lower level of support for Sisi. The Democracy International observer mission said the extension raised questions about the credibility of the electoral process.

Of course, nobody, not even the Met Office, can pretend that we have been having a heat wave in the past week but it does seem that a large number of our citizens were unable to make it to polling stations for whatever reason.

Turn-out in the UK was 36 per cent for the local elections and 33.7 per cent for the European. To be fair, it appears to be even lower in Egypt:

Election officials also said they would enforce a fine of over 500 Egyptian pounds (£42; $72) for non-voting.

Egypt's election commission said the extra day of voting was to "allow citizens who could not cast their ballots because of residence restrictions" to participate in the elections.

An election official added that part of the reason for the low turnout was the unusually hot weather on Tuesday.

Observers from Mr Sabahi's campaign estimated that turnout on Monday was 10-15% and even less on Tuesday.

What, one wonders, will be Wednesday's turn-out like and should we not think about making election day a holiday. Oh wait. That means even fewer people will bother to vote.

Clearing the ground - 2

Time to recall the somewhat obscure fact that there are other countries outside the European Union and that they have political events as well. First up, Ukraine, which held a presidential election today though in some parts voting was disrupted severely by pro-Russian separatists. Actually, it is hard to call them pro-Russian because they are not particularly in favour of things Russian, merely in favour (or so they think) of detaching whatever little bit of land they know and attaching it to Russia, whether anybody else likes the idea or not.

Based on exit polls, the Chocolate King, Petro Poroshenko has won an outright victory in the first round with 55.9 per cent of the vote. I have seen some rejoicing among people who still see the Ukrainian problem merely in EU terms as they consider Poroshenko to be pro-Western. This is simplifying the situation. Poroshenko is not exactly an outsider: he is an oligarch who did well under the previous regime (all the previous regimes) and was a Minister in Yanukovich's government. Not a leader of the opposition but a man who is seen as pragmatic and pro-western for good economic and political reasons.

In many ways he is but he is a wily fox and knows full well that he will have to do business with his neighbour in the east. It seems that Yulia Tymoshenko is a distant second, which should not surprise anyone who recalls her disastrous term of political power, regardless of what happened to her under Yanukovich's rule.

Was it really a good idea to take Crimea away and stir up trouble in other places?

No polling stations were open in Donetsk city, and across the region only seven out of 12 district electoral commissions were operating. The separatists are in control of large areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Or, in other words, areas that might have voted for a more pro-Russian candidate were taken out of the equation. Yet another miscalculation on the part of the man a surprising number of people in the West consider to be a political genius. Yes, I am talking about President Putin, the hero of numerous eurosceptics. Though it is true, as the Financial Times points out that the absence of much of eastern Ukraine from the poll, may give the Russian President the excuse not to recognize the results and continue to subvert his neighbour to the west.

It also looks quite likely that the former heavyweight boxing champion and leader of opposition forces, Vitali Klitschko will be the new Mayor of Kyiv.

Let us also not forget that presidential elections are about to happen in Egypt though most of us can work out who is likely to win those. President Sissi may not the worst option for Egypt, Arab Spring or no Arab Spring.

Can't help laughing

Politicians' self-importance is always a matter of great amusement; Western politicians's self importance when they pronounce on matters they know nothing about and can do nothing about is even more amusing; but nothing can beat the self-importance of EU politicians pronouncing on many subjects, none of which they understand or could possibly affect. As it happens, there is something a little funnier even than that: the media taking these people seriously.

Let us look at the High Panjandrum of EU foreign policy, the Lady Ashton or, as she prefers to be known nowadays, Cathy Ashton. This morning I received by e-mail the following selection of headlines about the lady's activity:

EU foreign policy chief praises 'calm' presidential vote in Mali. Well gosh, that must have cheered them up in Mali no end. Would they even have heard of the lady or known that neither she nor any one of her colleagues, including the several Presidents, have been elected?

After that, it's a joyous festival of irrelevance:

EU foreign policy chief arrives in Egypt to meet with leaders

EU's Ashton on mediation mission to Egypt, which, to be fair, became Egypt sides defiant as EU envoy seeks compromise. Is she the High Panjandrum, a mere envoy or, as the article describes her, Europe's top diplomat who fruitlessly shuttles between the various factions?

Al-Arabiya said that EU's Ashton headed to Cario for talks while according to Fox News EU's Ashton arrives in Cairo as crisis deepens. Post hoc is not necessarily propter hoc.

Then we have EU's Ashton in Egypt for Second Time in Two Weeks, not a definition of success; EU's Ashton visits Egypt, calls to return to civilian rule and EU's Ashton on mediation mission to Egypt post Cairo violence.

And all the time they know and we know and they know that we know that it makes no earthly difference to anyone or anything what that incompetent and grossly overpaid woman says or does.

News from around the world - 1

Most of us probably spent some of the day remembering that fateful one in 2001. I can recall with extreme clarity what I did all day in what order. However, some people took a slightly unorthodox way of remembering.

In Cairo the anniversary was remembered by a group of, one assumes Islamist extremists and quite possibly Muslim Brotherhood supporters, storming the US embassy, tearing down the flag and burning it. It seems that they were protesting about a film that has been produced by a group of US-based Coptic Christians who, one assumes, escaped from the growing anti-Coptic violence in Egypt. It is said that the film "demeans Islam and the Prophet Mohammed". Whereas completely insane behaviour supposedly in Islam's name does not demean it, I suppose.

Many of the more Islamist-leaning protesters had answered calls by Salafist leader Wesam Abdel-Wareth – who is also the president of Egypt's ultra-conservative Al-Hekma television channel – to protest the film 'Mohammed's trial' at 5pm outside the US embassy in Cairo's Garden City district. 

Abdel-Wareth, for his part, denied that protesters had managed to breach embassy premises, claiming that the American flag had been torched in front – rather than inside – embassy grounds. 

The Al-Hekma channel's official Facebook page, meanwhile, has posted a photo of a group of young men removing the flag outside the embassy with a comment that reads: "Ultras Zamalek tear the American flag in front of the embassy." 

US embassy spokesman David Linfield, for his part, confirmed that protesters had been able to enter the embassy and remove the flag. He went on to deny rumours, however, that shots had been fired at demonstrators or that anyone had been injured or killed. 

According to one Ahram Online reporter at the scene, no one had been injured in the ongoing demonstration. Despite the tense atmosphere, security forces deployed at the scene appeared relatively relaxed, with many of them sitting on the sidewalk.

Right, that's Egypt. Then there is the other great example of the Arab Spring, Libya. Remember Libya? The country that would probably be still under Gaddafi's rule if it weren't for NATO forces, specifically American, British and French ones?

Well they had an anti-American riot as well. This one seems to have been a little more serious.

Militiamen in Libya have stormed the US consulate in Benghazi, the country's second largest city. 

Reports say they were protesting against a US-made film that is allegedly insulting to the Prophet Muhammad, and set fire to the building. 

The building is said to have burnt down. It is thought nobody was in the consulate at the time.

Reuters says that

Gunmen attacked U.S. consulate offices in Libya's eastern city of Benghazi on Tuesday, and fought with security forces in protest against a U.S. film they say is blasphemous, a security official said.

He said a fire was burning inside the consulate and that staff had been evacuated.

A Reuters reporter saw three injured members of the Libyan security forces taken away in an ambulance. A Libyan security official who declined to be named said one U.S. security guard was injured in the clashes.

AFP reports that one American was killed and one injured. The latest Reuters report confirms this adding that several staff in the Consulate have been injured.

Reuters reporters on the scene could see looters raiding the empty Benghazi compound, walking off with desks, chairs and washing machines.

Unknown gunmen were shooting at the buildings while others threw handmade bombs into the compound, setting off small explosions.

Small fires were burning around the compound.

Passersby entered the unsecured compound to take pictures with their mobile phones and watch the looting.

Never let a good riot go to waste, say I, but use it to furnish your home. 

More on Egypt

The election commission has delayed its announcement of the result, which would indicate that the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Mohamed Morsi, has probably won. Announcement is now expected over the week-end and Secretary of State Clinton has described herself and her government as being troubled by this further delay and continuing uncertainty. Not half as troubled as she might be in a week or so if the Islamists do take power.

One election result still outstanding

Last Sunday there were three elections. The French parliamentary ones that went largely as expected (though Ségolène Royal lost her seat and the first round against First Girlfriend Valérie Trierweiler and Marin Le Pen's niece has become the youngest MP (one of two for the NF) while auntie lost by 118 votes.

The French electoral system was changed from proportional representation to first past the post in the late eighties specifically to keep the National Front out. This does not seem to be working any more.

The Greek election went as one would have expected and, truth to tell, nothing much has changed though they do now have a government.

That leaves the second round of the Egyptian presidential election, the results of which will be announced tomorrow but the Muslim Brotherhood is already declaring victory. Whether they will be able to keep it remains questionable. The general opinion is that the military will not give up power.

The Wall Street Journal has a sober appraisal of what is likely to happen in the country but seem to be under the misapprehension that there was a moment from the fall of Mubarak (who may or may not have died) when the army was not in control. The truth is that it was an army coup that toppled Mubarak not a popular revolution. Since then the Supreme Council of Armed Forces has been in power. More than that: the army owns a great deal of Egypt's economy. As this article puts it:

Until this very day, the role of the military establishment in the economy remains one of the major taboos in Egyptian politics. Over the past thirty years, the army has insisted on concealing information about its enormous interests in the economy and thereby keeping them out of reach of public transparency and accountability. The Egyptian Armed Forces owns a massive segment of Egypt’s economy—twenty-five to forty percent, according to some estimates. In charge of managing these enterprises are the army’s generals and colonels, notwithstanding the fact that they lack the relevant experience, training, or qualifications for this task.

The military’s economic interests encompass a diverse range of revenue-generating activities, including the selling and buying of real estate on behalf of the government, domestic cleaning services, running cafeterias, managing gas stations, farming livestock, producing food products, and manufacturing plastic table covers. All this information is readily available on the websites of relevant companies and factories, which publicly and proudly disclose that they belong to the army. Yet for some reason the military establishment insists on outlawing any public mention of these activities.

The question we have to ask ourselves, disregarding the analysis given by the media, is whether that is the worst case scenario for Egypt.

People seem to forget about this border

The ruling Egyptian military government has announced that the border between Egypt and Gaza, the one most Western media has forgotten, will be opened this week-end. This may be a sop to "growing sentiment here in favor of distancing the country from Israel". But one can't help wondering which way popular sentiment and, indeed, the government will go when Gazan Palestinians rush into Egypt in large numbers as has happened before. After all, we still don't know how long the reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, which is alleged to have prompted the move, will last. There is also the interesting question of how many of those peaceful Gazan Palestinians will use this development to build up an arsenal against Israel and to try to get a few suicide/homicide bombers into that country. Anything rather than do some hard work to make Gaza work.

Then again, do they need to make Gaza work with all the money that is pouring in. Apparently, this poverty-stricken region, this concentration camp, this latter-day Warsaw ghetto is about to acquire a huge shopping mall.

The biggest Palestinian shopping mall is scheduled to open in the Gaza Strip in mid-June.

This will be the second shopping mall to open in the Gaza Strip in a year. Last July, Palestinians opened a two-story mall that includes a supermarket, international clothing stores, a food court, beauty products, a children’s playground and a restaurant.

The modern three-story complex is the first of its kind in the Palestinian territories, said Ehab al-Issawi, executive director of the Al-Hayat Tureed Company that owns the mall.

Where exactly is the money coming from for this shopping mall and for the shopping that will be done in it?

The expertise is overwhelming

Or not. We still do not know how event in Egypt and other Arab countries will pan out but there is no shortage of predictions and blame being apportioned. Ari Shavit in Ha'aretz blames the West for abandoning their good ally (or so he thinks) Mubarak though it is not entirely clear what he thinks the West could have done. Of course, it could have stopped the phenomenal amount of aid money that pours into Arab countries and Egypt in particular but Mr Shavit does not seem to be saying that. He does think for some unknown reason that Obama's presidency is for keeps (an unlikely notion given the American system) and that power will now move towards such immensely successful states as Brazil and Russia. As ever, "expertise" is easy.

Here is an article by somebody who really is an expert and has been for many years, Amir Taheri. For example, he was the first by some months if not years who started saying that it was not really the Mullahs who had power in Iran but the security services and some parts of the military. He was pooh-poohed by "experts" until he turned out to be correct. His analysis, somewhat more optimistic than that of those self-appointed "experts", of events in Egypt is well worth reading.

It's the economy, stupid

And property rights. In Egypt as everywhere else. In a country where the most enterprising people have no stake in society things are likely to go belly-up as they seem to have. done. Hernando de Soto explains in the Wall Street Journal.

On a related theme: I am rather intrigued by people who are screaming abuse at the United States and the West in general for abandoning their "good ally" Mubarak. In the first place, President Mubarak is not the world's greatest ally and in the second place what exactly can the West do? Invade Egypt? The days of Lord Cromer are long gone. Perhaps that is a bad thing but it is an inescapable fact of life.

Everyone is an expert

Watching events in Tunisia, Algeria and, especially, Egypt, I have been struck by the number of people who probably would be hard put to place various Egyptian cities and all the different countries of North Africa, the Horn and the Middle East on the map are, in fact, apparently experts on events there.

Expertise varies from people who are certain that Egypt without Mubarak will be a far greater threat to Israel and the West than it was under him to those who think all Muslims are "nutjobs" anyway.

Readers of this blog will know that I do not think all Muslims are "nutjobs" and have been very doubtful about Mubarak's good faith though, to be fair, he did have a difficult task, as will anyone who emerges as Egypt's leader in the near future. Will it be ElBaradei (a gruesome prospect as Claudia Rossett points out) or will he be supported by the Muslim Brotherhood the way a hanged man is supported by a rope?

I have no doubts that the demonstrators in Tunisia and Egypt and any other country run by some Arab despot are there because they have finally realized that it is not the West, the Great Satan, the Lesser Satan or Israel who is causing their problems but their own governments. As they do not have free and fair elections (unlike us in Britain and what a success we have made of that privilege) they have been rioting in order to overthrow those governments. What next? Nobody seems to know for certain.

Will it be 1989 for the Middle East? One hopes so, of course, but that seems unlikely for a number of reasons. The East European countries and Soviet republics (most of whom have not actually done terribly well out the last twenty years) had one coherent enemy though the situation was different in different places. In the Middle East and North Africa the enemy is diffuse though there are similarities, so each country will have to cope on its own.

There was a civil society present in many of the then Communist countries and the ones in which it was weak are still suffering from post-Communist traumas. There is a civil society in Egypt but not so much in the other countries and even there it may not be strong enough to create a political structure. Even non-experts have realized that the Muslim Brotherhood, not the leaders of the demonstrations or the riots are, nevertheless, waiting in the shadows, hoping to grab power if they can. Possibly they will be able to and the Islamists will return to Tunisia and take over in Algeria.

It may well turn into a re-run of 1979 when Khomeini took over in Iran and imposed a far worse regime than anyone could dream of under the Shah.

Meanwhile, one lot of tourists are showing their faith in ... well, something or other. It would appear that nothing will stop Georgians from going to seek the sun in Sharm el-Sheikh. After all, the riots have not spread beyond Cairo by the looks of it.

ADDENDUM: An excellent article by Max Boot in the Wall Street Journal pours cold water on all those who tell us that President Mubarak is the West's greatest ally and those who are whooping with joy at his imminent departure

Thus while Egypt's security services cracked down hard on Islamist terrorism in the 1990s when it was threatening the lucrative tourist trade, Mr. Mubarak has allowed the Muslim Brotherhood—the mother of all Islamist organizations—to become the main opposition party. This has made him, as he well knows, the indispensable man to the West—the only thing supposedly standing in the way of an Islamist power grab.

Then again:

Mr. Mubarak's downfall could well be a good thing in the long run if it opens up Egypt's closed political and economic systems to greater dynamism and debate, so that in the future frustrated young Egyptians can find peaceful expression rather than strapping on a suicide vest. Yet we should be realistic about the short-term costs of a new regime in a country that has been subjected to decades of anti-Western and anti-Israeli propaganda by Mr. Mubarak—and where many blame us (with some justification) for inflicting Mr. Mubarak on them. A government that better reflects the will of the people will be less willing to cut deals with the U.S. or Israel.

Mohammed ElBaradei, the former U.N. atomic agency head who has emerged as the leader of the opposition, made clear his anti-Israel sentiments in an interview last summer with the German magazine Der Spiegel. He called the Gaza Strip "the world's largest prison" and declared that it was imperative to "open the borders, end the blockade."

Mr. ElBaradei also spoke glowingly of Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has assailed Israel in harsh terms and voted against United Nations sanctions on Iran. Mr. ElBaradei said: "Turkey is a member of NATO and partner of the West and Israel. And yet Prime Minister Erdogan has no qualms about supporting an aid flotilla for Gaza that was supposed to breach Israel's sea blockade. The people of the Arab world are celebrating him. Erdogan's photo can be seen everywhere."

That is probably what we can expect from a post-Mubarak Egypt. It is doubtful that Mr. ElBaradei would terminate Egypt's peace treaty with Israel—a move that would cost Egypt more than a billion dollars annually in American aid. But it is probable that, like Mr. Erdogan's Turkey, Mr. ElBaradei's Egypt would be less cooperative with Israel and more friendly to its enemies. In the Muslim world, this is actually a moderate position compared to the jihadism of the Islamists. But from the standpoint of the U.S. or Israel it is obviously far from ideal.

The moral of the story is that supporting two-faced dictators never ends well.

Things are happening all over the world - 2

Tunisia issued an international warrant "for ousted President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and six relatives, accusing him of taking money out of the North African nation illegally". I expect he did, too.

Mind you, freedom is not precisely blossoming under the new regime:

As [Justice Minister] Chebbi spoke, Tunisian police fired tear gas at hundreds of protesters who have been pressuring the interim government to get rid of old guard ministers who served under Ben Ali. The clashes broke out in front of the prime minister's office in Tunis, the capital. Some demonstrators responded by throwing stones at police.

Several injured protesters were carted away from the melee. Others tried to smash the windows of a police van, leaving the ground covered in blood. There was no immediate word on casualties.

It's always easier to overthrow an old regime than to build a new one, as the Russians found in 1917. Let us hope that the Tunisian experience will not be as horrific as the Russian was.

Meanwhile, protests are going on in Egypt. Secretary of State Clinton is urging restraint all round, the avoidance of violence (too late for that, I should have thought) and political reform. Understandably, the riots have affected stock prices and are expected to affect foreign investment in the country. Will they affect the stupendous amount of aid Egypt receives from the West? Hard to tell.

Meanwhile, the Egyptian government is trying to crack down on the remaining protests and blocking social media such as twitter, whose only use, as far as I can tell, is to aid protesters and demonstrators in highly authoritarian countries.

There have been rumours that President Mubarak's family, possibly accompanied by him, have fled the country to Britain but this has now been denied.

Let us note something interesting about the protesters in both countries: none of them seem to care about or even remember the Palestinians. As has been noted before, that particular myth is being exploded (if one may use that expression).

Where do the Cleggerons stand on this?

As the political world in Britain yawns and turns away becomes convulsed by the news that the egregious Baroness Warsi has decided to deflect criticisms of her hopeless chairmanship of the Conservative Party by accusing the entire country of being prejudiced against Muslims (Ed West's very sensible piece, Lord Tebbit's ditto and even ConHome has come up with mild criticism of the good lady) some people are looking further afield.

Baroness Cox, not a token appointment by any manner of means, being one of the hardest working peers in the realm, asked HMG on Tuesday:

they will make representations to the Government of Egypt to ensure adequate protection of all religious minorities, following the recent killings of Christians in Alexandria

There was a good deal of pleasant waffle in the subsequent debate but one thing comes out fairly clearly from Lord Howell's evasive replies: the Cleggeron Coalition may have said that it is terribly upset and saddened by the events though heartened by some of the reaction in the rest of Egypt (the evidence for the latter is patchy) but it made no representations to the Egyptian government whatsoever. I hear from other sources that while other governments issued some kind of stern warnings the British one kept quiet. Perhaps they do not want to upset Baroness Warsi, who is, presumably, trying to pre-empt her well-merited dismissal from a post she never deserved.

Former Communist is more acceptable

Or so Ivo Indzhev, a Bulgarian political blogger, comments about the appointment of the Bulgarian diplomat Irina Bokova to become UNESCO's first woman Director-General.

Those who dislike communism in this country are not happy about her promotion. For people in this region, her appointment sends the message that the West can swallow someone’s communist past very easily but can’t abide an Arab who is anti-Israel.

It is not entirely clear whether this means that Mr Indzhev thinks it would have been a good idea to appoint a man who is not just anti-Israeli but downright anti-Semitic and who, as Egypt's Culture Minister, has presided over a destruction of any semblance of free media in that country or whether he is just incensed at the idea of Comrade Madame Bokova getting the position.

It is true that Madame Bokova comes from a privileged Communist apparatchik family and, as so many of them, she made the transition to a privileged post-Communist political and diplomatic life with great ease. She is, needless to say, a great supporter of European integration and, indeed, of all transnational organizations.

Farouk Hosni did not appear to be a good loser:

Meanwhile, the Egyptian culture minister defeated by Bokova has blamed her victory on "Zionist pressures". Last year Hosni said he would burn "Israeli books in Egyptian libraries". He later apologised for the remark.

"The organisation has become politicised," Hosni told reporters at Cairo airport on arrival on September 23. "The reality is that we waged a fantastic battle. The Egyptian candidate had the newspapers and Zionist pressures against him every day," he said, referring to himself.

The Egyptian press echoed Hosni's remarks. Opposition weekly Al-Ahrar wrote on its front page about "a ferocious campaign against him by the American administration, under Jewish pressure".

I am, of course, shocked to find that anyone should think that any organization to do with the United Nations can have been politicized but I do think that Mr Hosni can rest assured that Zionism is not a strong force in any of them. For one thing it strains credulity to imagine Madame Bokova to be a Zionist.

It is, however, interesting that the only two serious candidates were a highly oppressive, anti-Semitic Minister of Culture and a former Communist, whose own attitude to such matters as freedom of speech must be doubtful. (Incidentally, there are some curious gaps in the lady's career. Just exactly how long did she spend at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations?)

According to AFP, Egypt may grumble but is unlikely to change its foreign policy because of this outcome. Or its culture policy, one must assume.