Líder da CGTP alerta para a grave situação em que o País se encontra

Está em curso "ataque duro" aos direitos dos trabalhadores - Carvalho da Silva

Lisboa assiste a nova manifestação de centenas de sindicalistas da CGTP

How Green Became the Color of Money

Jeffrey St. Clair

Bruce Babbitt's inglorious role in brokering the Deal of Shame, which restarted logging in the ancient forests of the Pacific Northwest, shocked many greens. After all, Babbitt was viewed as one of them. He had been president of the League of Conservation Voters, and many had seen him as the eco-chevalier of the Clinton administration. But the gratuitous stab in the back should have surprised no one.

Babbitt came from a big-time ranching family fed and fattened on the western traditions of cheap water, free range and unregulated mining. When mineworkers in Arizona walked off the job citing unsafe and unfair working conditions at the Phelps Dodge silver mine in the early 1980s, then Governor Babbitt called in the National Guard to crush the strike on behalf of the mining company, which had long planned the confrontation in consort with the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton Business School as a test case for breaking strikes and unions with permanent "replacement workers."

Babbitt also strong-armed federal park officials in order to secure approval of a resort complex near the rim of the Grand Canyon. The resort was owned by a long-time friend and political supporter.

But Babbitt is perhaps most notorious for his single-minded pursuit of Colorado River water. The multi-billion dollar Central Arizona Project channeled millions of 'acre feet' of precious water into sprawling developments absurdly located in the Arizona desert to assuage the thirst of real estate czars in Phoenix and Tucson. While Babbitt supported mighty water allocations to his state, he opposed them for his neighbors, vigorously objecting to water claims made by California and Utah. These western water battles brought Babbitt into the embrace of the infamous Richard Carver, a commissioner in Nye County, Nevada. Carver was a key leader of the 'county supremacy' movement, which asserts that the federal government does not have the constitutional right to own land. Carver promoted his cause at gatherings of far right groups across the West, most notably at the Jubilation, an event organized by the racist Posse Comitatus.

In August 1994, Carver ignited a war with the federal government when he mounted a bulldozer and plowed an illegal road into the Toiyabe National Forest, nearly running over two Forest Service rangers. Carver, who touted Babbitt as one of his closest friends, threatened to shoot anyone who tried to stop him. Although harassment of a federal employee is a felony, punishable by a $250,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison, six months passed and the federal government took no action. Finally, only a civil suit was filed, and that against the Nye County government itself, no Carver. Some local BLM and Forest Service rangers believed that Babbitt intervened with the Department of Justice investigation on behalf of his friend Carver.

Other friends of Bruce Babbitt haven't fared nearly so well. Take Jim Baca, who came from one of the oldest Hispanic families in the Southwest and who served for several years as the lands commissioner for the state of New Mexico, where he acquired a reputation as a progressive and hard-nosed conservationist. But Baca's anti-cattle grazing stance earned him the enmity of ranchers throughout the West. Over the objections of the National Cattlemen's Association and the American Mining Congress, Babbitt chose Bace to oversee the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the agency in charge of administering about 250 million acres of public lands in the West—lands long viewed as the private dominion of cattle ranchers and gold mining companies.

Baca tried to make ranchers pay market rates for the use of public grasslands. (At the time, ranchers paid less than a fifth of grazing rates charged on private and state lands—a $200 million a year subsidy.) Then Baca went after the gold companies. The feisty new head of the BLM became a vigorous advocate for the repeal of the 1872 Mining Law, which allowed gold and silver mining companies to claim title to public lands for as little as $2.50 an acre and then pay no royalties on the billions of dollars of minerals they extract. Baca fought for an 8 percent royalty on mining of all public minerals and for an end to the transfer of federal lands to mining companies. Finally, Baca became the first BLM director to openly advocate for the need for more legally-designated wilderness. He supported setting aside nearly 20 million acres of high desert and mountain country in Utah, Idaho and Oregon as wilderness: closed to logging, mining and grazing.

This ran Baca athwart very powerful interests, many residing in the Democratic Party. Baca's most vicious opponent turned out to be the Democratic Governor of Idaho, Cecil Andrus, former Secretary of the Interior and a former employee of the Wilderness Society, where Baca had once served as a director. In December of 1993, Andrus attacked Baca in a letter to Babbitt, pronouncing: "My friend, frankly, you don't have enough political allies in the West to treat us this shabbily." Later, Andrus, who after retiring as governor joined the boards of two mining companies, threatened publicly, "It's either Baca or Babbitt. One of them's gotta go."

A few days later Babbitt announced in the Washington Post that Baca had been unceremoniously transferred from his BLM post to a vague new role as a policy advisor to Babbitt. There was a problem. No one had told Baca about the move and he resisted, publicly.

"I thought that Babbitt at least owed it to me as a long-time friend to explain why I was being ousted," Baca said. "I wanted him to ask me for my resignation personally." Babbitt, chastened by criticism from the press, pulled back. He held off removing Baca for a month. Then he called Baca into his office and told him to either accept the demotion or tender his resignation. Baca resigned. A month later, as he contemplated a run for governor of New Mexico, Baca said, "Babbitt can't stand up for his principles, because he has no backbone."

The Baca debacle was eerily reminiscent of a similar purge of federal land managers during the first Bush administration, when White House chief of staff John Sununu engineered the removal of regional directors of the National Park Service and Forest Service who had stoop up against the timber, mining and oil companies which wanted increased access to the public lands adjacent to Yellowstone National Park. This firing of federal land managers sparked roars of protest from environmentalists, prompting congressional hearings and stories in the press and on TV. However, the national environmental leadership remained strangely mute following the removal of Baca.

The man Babbitt chose to replace Baca, Mike Dombeck, was much friendlier to ranching and mining interests. Six months after his appointment Dombeck drafted a secret memo to Bruce Babbitt outlining a plan that would have seemed radical during the tenure of James Watt. As a budget-cutting measure, Dombeck advised Babbitt that the BLM could either turn over 110 million acres of federal land to the states or sell them off to the highest bidder. An attempt earlier in the 20th century to dispose of public lands and resources had sent former Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall to prison in the Teapot Dome scandal.

Babbitt's right hand man at Interior was Tom Collier. Before joining the Clinton administration, Collier and Babbitt worked together at the DC law firm / lobby shop Steptoe and Johnson, where their clients included many of the same companies they were later in charge of regulating at Interior, including Burlington-Northern, Aluminum Companies of America, Canadian Forest Industries Council, Canyon Forest Village Corp., Sealaska, Yavapai-Prescott Tribe and the Forest Industries Committee on Timber Taxation and Valuation.

One of the companies previously represented by Collier and Babbitt was Norwegian Cruise Lines, which held a lucrative permit for cruise visits into Glacier Bay National Park in southeast Alaska. For years the company and former Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski pressured the National Park Service to increase the number of cruise visits into the narrow fjords of Glacier Bay. The Park Service resisted, fearing harmful affects from the huge ships on orca, gray whales and other marine life. In fact, Park Service biologists were hoping to curtail the number of cruise ships permitted in the bay, if not ban them outright. Then Babbitt and Collier intervened. They overruled Park Service scientists and arbitrarily raised the number of cruise ship visits, leading to millions in profits for their former clients.

* * *

In the spring of 1995 the Clinton administration's merciless pursuit of free trade pacts collided head on with the world's most glamorous animal: Delphinus delphis—dolphins to you.

Here's how this ugly episode went down.

For many years Mexico had been whining about being prohibited from selling its canned tuna north of the border. The US had mandated that only dolphin-free tuna be imported into the country, requiring methods of fishing that don't snag dolphins as part of the tuna haul. This prohibition was one of the great victories of the 1980s, but no sooner was the NAFTA agreement signed by the Clinton administration than Mexico denounced the US tuna law as a cruel restraint on free trade and demanded its rescission.

Prodded by Mickey Kantor, the chief US trade rep, the Clinton White House speedily assented, but cautioned that some national environmental organizations would have to be wheeled forward to provide political cover against assaults from the volatile and potent dolphin lobby. Enter the Environmental Defense Fund, a fanatical espouser of free trade as the salve for more or less everything. EDF was vociferously pro-NAFTA and had positioned itself as a long-time foe of dolphin protection laws as "ideologically unsound."

The crucial meeting to settle the dolphins' fate took place at the Mexican embassy in Washington, DC in July of 1995. Here US and Mexican bureaucrats hunkered down with executives from the Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, World Wildlife Fund and the Center for Marine Conservation. Carefully excluded from this parlay were pro-dolphin groups such as Earth Island Institute and the Humane Society. Also shut out were the congressional members and staffer who had framed the 1992 law protecting the dolphins, seven million of which had perished in the waters of the eastern Pacific between 1970 and 1992.

The secret session in the Mexican embassy was not an auspicious occasion for the world's brainiest mammal. The conspirators agreed that the 1992 law should be over-turned and new statutory language devised that would allow Mexico's dolphin-lethal tuna to roll north into US supermarkets. Staffers from the EDF and World Wildlife Fund would write the new bill in language congenial to corporate-friendly greens with help from Bud Walsh, an attorney who had labored for big business and the Wise Use Movement.

Next came the task of selling dolphin death on the Hill. In the forefront of the lobbying was former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth, who had been brought on by Clinton to serve as Undersecretary of State for global environmental affairs. Wirth dispatched hand-written notes to crucial senators urging them to sign on to the bill and promoted it as a a "good package with a sound science/enviro base with Breaux and Stevens as sponsors."

Now, when it comes to environmental matters John Breaux of Louisiana and Ted Stevens of Alaska were four-square for rape and pillage and long carried water for Don Tyson, Arkansas's chicken and fish king. But some seasoned observers of Beltway politics were puzzled at Wirth's stance for the dolphin killers. Early in 1995 Wirth had taken the trouble to leak to the Washington Post a memo he'd sent to the White House urging Clinton to stand firm against those around him counseling sell-outs of Mother Nature.

But the dark side of Tim Wirth's environmentalism goes back to his days in the senate and his friendship with Senator John Heinz, the ketchup heir, with whom he had drafted "Project 88," the detailed manifesto of free-market environmentalism, which zestfully encouraged replacement of federal laws and regulations with cash inducements for corporate pillagers to behave themselves.

After Senator Heinz's death, Wirth and his wife Wren grew especially close to his widow Teresa Heinz. Following a period of grieving, the widow soon pressed forward into a romance with Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. The tinder ignited at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, where they mightily impressed other junketeers by conversing in French.

Teresa Heinz, the daughter of a Portuguese doctor, was brought up as a child of empire in Mozambique, went to university in apartheid South Africa and apparently brought with her to the United States an ardent veneration for the capitalist system, and indeed for capitalists. Fortified by Heinz millions, Teresa made her way onto the board of the Environmental Defense Fund and—in the late 1980s when the EDF was heavily involved in various Amazonian promotions and fundraising endeavors—used to sweep into the western Amazon in great style, gazing with marked disfavor on the unruly rubber-tappers mustered at the Rio Branco airport to meet her. Frantic EDF staffers would plead with the seringueiros to shed their radical buttons and signs lest Madame Teresa conclude that the EDF had fallen into bed with Third World revolutionaries, instead of promoting parks from which Indians and rubber-tappers could swiftly be evicted.

Being a member of the Heinz family added clout to Teresa's stern ideological views, clout in the form of a fortune then estimated at between $670 million and $740 million. Hence the moral crisis for Senator John Kerry. Teresa Heinz lobbied forcefully for the new death-to-dolphins bill. But her new husband (the couple had married in July of 1995) was a doughty dolphin ally, possibly because this splendid mammal is not profuse on the St. George's Banks, nor in other haunts of the New England fishing fleet.

If a last-ditch defense of the 1992 law was to be mounted, John Kerry was the very man to lead it. But the senator had new cares and burdens. When he gave up Morgan Fairchild for Teresa Heinz and joined with her in the refreshments of matrimony, Kerry was asked whether he would use his wife's fortune to stake his political races. Kerry said he wouldn't. Unless, that is, his opponent also put up family money.

In the waning days of 1995, Massachusetts's Gingrich-loving Governor, William Weld, announced that he would challenge Kerry. The wealthy Weld proved a formidable opponent. Kerry thus confronted an enormous temptation to turn to his wife for help. His zeal for the dolphins declined markedly.

Meanwhile Teresa busily pressed the Heinz Corporation, whose subsidiary, Star-Kist, is the world's leading tuna processor. Having invested millions in dolphin-safe fishing fleets and having mined excellent publicity for its "dolphin-safe tuna," Star-Kist was loath to see the 1992 law changed. It claimed that the new law would cost the company 6,000 jobs in American Samoa. Nonetheless, Teresa, one of the Heinz Corporation's largest stockholders, lobbied Star-Kist to adopt a more cold-blooded attitude toward the dolphins. All this work paid off in 1997 when congress finally passed the dolphin death act.

In December of 1995, Teresa Heinz, through her foundation, disbursed the largest single environmental grant in US history: $20 million for an environmental center to promulgate the free-market economics her late husband outlined before his death.

To be continued.

Jeffrey St. Clair is the author of Been Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me: the Politics of Nature and Grand Theft Pentagon. His newest book, Born Under a Bad Sky, is published by AK Press / CounterPunch books. He can be reached at: sitka@comcast.net.   

This essay is excerpted from the forthcoming book GreenScare: the New War on Environmentalism by Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank.

Click here to read Part One.

Click here to read Part Two.

Click here to read Part Three.

Click here to read Part Four.

http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair01282011.html

The Egyptian Revolution

Gary Leupp

I’m watching live coverage of the Egyptian revolution on Al-Jazeera TV.  Cairo is swarming with hundreds of thousands, defying the curfew, hurling stones at the police. The images recall the Palestinian youth waging their Intifadas. The National Democratic Party headquarters is in flames. Downtown Suez has been taken over by the people, two police stations torched. The security forces are out in strength and shooting into crowds. But the people have lost their fear.

Reporters and commentators on Al-Jazeera and other channels have no choice but to note that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is widely hated, and that those in the street are seeking freedom from a dictatorship. But they also keep saying “The situation is getting worse.”

Worse?

I think of Mao Zedong’s response to critics of peasant rebellion in China in 1927. He noted that “even progressive people” saw uprisings as “terrible.” “But it’s not terrible,” he declared. “It is anything but ‘terrible.’ It’s fine!”

Watching the live coverage, I see the people of Egypt, fed up with their oppression, and inspired by the revolution in Tunisia, doing something very, very fine. It is inspiring. It is profoundly hopeful.

The Obama administration line (as summarized by Joe Biden, interviewed by Jim Lehrer on PBS), can be summarized as follows: Egyptians have the right to protest. Many are middle class folks, with legitimate concerns. But we should not refer to Mubarak as a dictator. It’s not time for him to go. He has been a key ally of the U.S. and Israel, in the “Middle East peace process” and the War on Terror. Egypt is dissimilar to Tunisia, and it would be “a stretch” to suggest that a trend is underway. The U.S. should encourage those protesting and Mubarak to talk. Everyone should avoid violence.

The mainstream infotainment media spin can be summarized like this: The “unrest” in Egypt puts the U.S. in a difficult position. On the one hand Mubarak has abetted U.S. “national interests” and been Israel’s only Arab ally. (These two are always assumed to be closely linked; the notion that an Arab leader is a friend of the U.S. to the extend that he kisses Israel’s ass is never questioned.) On the other hand, U.S. officials have been saying for years that the Middle East needs “democratic reform.”

This puts in the U.S. in bind, we are told. The U.S. confronts a “dilemma.” The talking heads depict the U.S. as somehow a victim in this situation. (Isn’t it terrible, they’re implying, that the Egyptian people by their militancy in favor of supposed U.S. ideals are trying to topple the USA’s best friend in the Arab world? What a headache to have to deal with!)

Seems to me however that this is another of those instances of chickens coming home to roost.

The U.S. has supported Mubarak primarily in appreciation for his stance towards Israel. (The mainstream media is referring to him as an “ally” of Israel.) It’s not really because he’s been a “partner in the peace process”---because there is no real peace process. Relentless Israeli settlement activity on Palestinian land supported by the Lobby in the U.S. has insured that.

Wikileaks documents indicate that Mubarak has been content for the “process” to lag indefinitely so that he could represent himself as the vital Arab middleman while enjoying two billion in U.S. military aid per year.  But Palestinians hate him for cooperating with the demonization of democratically elected Hamas and the embargo imposed on Gaza. And Egyptians hate him for, among many other things, betraying their Palestinian brothers and sisters.

Rather, the U.S. has supported Mubarak because he’s provided an Arab fig leaf for the unequivocal support for Israel that the U.S. has provided for decades. U.S. diplomats have, as Wikileaks reveal, at times expressed concern that the dictator might be causing some problems by his “heavy-handed” treatment of dissidents. But this is not a matter of moral indignation, or concern about the lives of Egyptians. It’s nothing more than an expression of concern that his fascistic rule might jeopardize his ability to help U.S.-Israeli policy in the region and keep the Suez Canal open.

And now that brutal rule has caused an explosion. The reaction from U.S. officials and political commentators is, “We never expected this.”

Well surprise, surprise! (These folks were dumbfounded by the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as well. Don’t they understand that people eventually fight back?)

I think of that old Langston Hughes poem:

What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore--
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over--
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?

Egypt is exploding. The deferred dreams of the Arab world are exploding. And even the corporate media acknowledges that the people are jubilant (while warning that none of this might be in “our interest”). But for people with some basic morals, concerned about the happiness of humanity in general, is this not totally fine?

Al-Jazeera shows viewers how U.S. officials are changing the tone of their comments, backing off more and more each day from support of Mubarak. They’re reiterating with increasing emphasis that the demonstrators indeed have legitimacy. (Did these people they just figure this out?) What sheer opportunism!

Obama, always the centrist opportunist wanting to be everybody’s friend, wants to be the Egyptian people’s friend. He showed that in Cairo in 2009. In his celebrated speech to the Muslim world he on the one hand spouted platitudes about U.S. acceptance of Islam and on the other insulted everyone’s intelligence by calling the invasion of Afghanistan a “war of necessity.” He (accurately) described the vicious assault on Iraq as a “war of choice,” but said anything about how those responsible for such a crime ought to be punished. He does not support any investigation that would show how neocon Zionists in his predecessor’s administration faked a case for war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Arabs.

His  real message is:  the U.S. can lie and kill, and then posture as the moral exemplar (maybe even apologizing slightly when crimes are embarrassingly exposed). Even so, the people of the world are supposed to understand that alignment with the U.S. is the best hope of their best hope.

And now Obama wants the best of both worlds: an ongoing engagement with Mubarak (if he survives), and a hand outstretched to the people of Egypt, tainted by so many other handshakes with so many dictators so far.

Demonstrators in Cairo note that tear gas canisters on the street are marked “Made in USA.” What should they to make of that? Who’s really encouraging their dreams? Who’s caused them to defer them, decade upon decade? It’s the same foe that has caused the deferment of dreams here in this country and around the world.

I learned to say shukran in Cairo. To my friends there now, engaged in this fine, fine battle, I say that now. 

Shukran, shukran  for inspiring the world, showing that another world might be possible.

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp01282011.html

Italia: el éxito de la manifestación del sector del metal del sindicato CGIL no ha sido noticia - La huelga desaparecida

Felice Fortunaci

La adhesión a la huelga superó el 70%. El Secretario general del FIOM-CGIL pidió la convocatoria de la huelga general. Pero su petición no fue acogida por la CGIL. (Traducido por Gorka Larrabeiti)

Manifestaciones en 18 ciudades, un gran nivel de adhesión de los trabajadores. El día de la huelga el 28 de enero, entre los eventos y movilizaciones de los sindicatos de base FIOM, tenía todas las características para ser noticia . Pero acabo de terminar de escuchar el resumen de prensa de Radiotre (RAI).

Ni uno solo de los periódicos  de mayor circulación ha dado la noticia de las manifestaciones sindicales en primera plana  . Afortunadamente, Il manifiesto e Il Fatto Quotidiano, con una pequeña cada de texto, han tratado de darle relieve pero nadie ha recogido la noticia. Únase lo anterior a la falta de cobertura en los créditos iniciales del telediario de la noche y se verá  que se ha guardado un silencio absurdo. Periodísticamente es un vacío. Democráticamente es un asunto serio y debe ser condenado. Parece que a los grandes medios sólo les gusten las manifestaciones contra las corruptas clases dirigentes de África del Norte.

Quienes cuestionan a nuestras clases dominantes quedan relegados al segundo plano .

Sin embargo, también en Italia tenemos muchos ejemplos que deben llevarnos a no subestimar el peso de lo que ocurre en las calles . Incluso el primer gobierno de Berlusconi cayó en parte debido a fuertes movilizaciones en defensa del sistema de pensiones.

Seguiremos haciendo lo posible para tratar de dar voz real a la Italia real, la que no aparece en los comunicados de prensa.

http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=121335 

Vídeo documental sobre el conflicto en Somalia - ¡Piratas!

Juan Falque

Contradictory US Objectives in Egypt Questioned

PJ Crowley, the spokesman for the US state department, has been talking to Al Jazeera about the recent protests in Egypt and Tunisia.

He says the US supports social reform and more freedoms in Egypt, yet at the same time supports the government of President Hosni Mubarak.

Crowley describes Egypt as "an ally and friend of the United States, an anchor of stability in the Middle East which is helping us pursue a comprehensive peace in the Middle East".

"We want to see change in Egypt, we want to see it done peacefully and stably."

Bottom line: State Department logic dictates supporting dictatorship in the name of democracy.

http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/01/contradictory-us-objectives-egypt-questioned

US Embassy document: Secret Plan on Regime Change in Egypt

Global Research, January 29, 2011

Secret document sent from the US Embassy in Cairo to Washington.

[revealed by Daily Telegraph] 

10:30PM GMT 28 Jan 2011

 

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 CAIRO 002572 SIPDIS FOR NEA/ELA, R, S/P

AND H NSC FOR PASCUAL AND KUTCHA-HELBLING E.O. 12958: DECL:

12/30/2028 TAGS: PGOV, PHUM, KDEM, EG SUBJECT: APRIL 6 ACTIVIST ON HIS

U.S. VISIT AND REGIME CHANGE IN EGYPT REF: A. CAIRO 2462 B.

CAIRO 2454 C. CAIRO 2431 Classified By: ECPO A/Mincouns

Catherine Hill-Herndon for reason 1.4 (d ). 1. (C) Summary and comment: On December 23, April 6 activist xxxxxxxxxxxx expressed
satisfaction with his participation in the December 3-5 \"Alliance of
Youth Movements Summit,\" and with his subsequent meetings with USG
officials, on Capitol Hill, and with think tanks. He described how
State Security (SSIS) detained him at the Cairo airport upon his
return and confiscated his notes for his summit presentation calling
for democratic change in Egypt, and his schedule for his Congressional
meetings. xxxxxxxxxxxx contended that the GOE will never undertake
significant reform, and therefore, Egyptians need to replace the
current regime with a parliamentary democracy. He alleged that
several opposition parties and movements have accepted an unwritten
plan for democratic transition by 2011; we are doubtful of this claim.
xxxxxxxxxxxx said that although SSIS recently released two April 6
activists, it also arrested three additional group members. We have
pressed the MFA for the release of these April 6 activists. April 6's
stated goal of replacing the current regime with a parliamentary
democracy prior to the 2011 presidential elections is highly
unrealistic, and is not supported by the mainstream opposition. End
summary and comment. ---------------------------- Satisfaction with
the Summit ---------------------------- 2. (C) xxxxxxxxxxxx expressed
satisfaction with the December 3-5 \"Alliance of Youth Movements
Summit\" in New York, noting that he was able to meet activists from
other countries and outline his movement's goals for democratic change
in Egypt. He told us that the other activists at the summit were very
supportive, and that some even offered to hold public demonstrations
in support of Egyptian democracy in their countries, with xxxxxxxxxxxx
as an invited guest. xxxxxxxxxxxx said he discussed with the other
activists how April 6 members could more effectively evade harassment
and surveillance from SSIS with technical upgrades, such as
consistently alternating computer \"simcards.\" However, xxxxxxxxxxxx
lamented to us that because most April 6 members do not own computers,
this tactic would be impossible to implement. xxxxxxxxxxxx was
appreciative of the successful efforts by the Department and the
summit organizers to protect his identity at the summit, and told us
that his name was never mentioned publicly. ------------------- A
Cold Welcome Home ------------------- 3. (S) xxxxxxxxxxxx told us
that SSIS detained and searched him at the Cairo Airport on December
18 upon his return from the U.S. According to xxxxxxxxxxxx, SSIS
found and confiscated two documents in his luggage: notes for his
presentation at the summit that described April 6's demands for
democratic transition in Egypt, and a schedule of his Capitol Hill
meetings. xxxxxxxxxxxx described how the SSIS officer told him that
State Security is compiling a file on him, and that the officer's
superiors instructed him to file a report on xxxxxxxxxxxx most recent
activities. --------------------------------------------- ----------
Washington Meetings and April 6 Ideas for Regime Change
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 4. (C)
xxxxxxxxxxxx described his Washington appointments as positive, saying
that on the Hill he met with xxxxxxxxxxxx, a variety of House staff
members, including from the offices of xxxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxxx),
and with two Senate staffers. xxxxxxxxxxxx also noted that he met
with several think tank members. xxxxxxxxxxxx said that xxxxxxxxxxxx's
office invited him to speak at a late January Congressional hearing on
House Resolution 1303 regarding religious and political freedom in
Egypt. xxxxxxxxxxxx told us he is interested in attending, but
conceded he is unsure whether he will have the funds to make the trip.
He indicated to us that he has not been focusing on his work as a
\"fixer\" for journalists, due to his preoccupation with his U.S.
trip. 5. (C) xxxxxxxxxxxx described how he tried to convince his
Washington interlocutors that the USG should pressure the GOE to
implement significant reforms by threatening to reveal CAIRO 00002572
002 OF 002 information about GOE officials' alleged \"illegal\"
off-shore bank accounts. He hoped that the U.S. and the international
community would freeze these bank accounts, like the accounts of
Zimbabwean President Mugabe's confidantes. xxxxxxxxxxxx said he wants
to convince the USG that Mubarak is worse than Mugabe and that the GOE
will never accept democratic reform. xxxxxxxxxxxx asserted that
Mubarak derives his legitimacy from U.S. support, and therefore
charged the U.S. with \"being responsible\" for Mubarak's \"crimes.\"
He accused NGOs working on political and economic reform of living in
a \"fantasy world,\" and not recognizing that Mubarak -- \"the head of
the snake\" -- must step aside to enable democracy to take root. 6.
(C) xxxxxxxxxxxx claimed that several opposition forces -- including
the Wafd, Nasserite, Karama and Tagammu parties, and the Muslim
Brotherhood, Kifaya, and Revolutionary Socialist movements -- have
agreed to support an unwritten plan for a transition to a
parliamentary democracy, involving a weakened presidency and an
empowered prime minister and parliament, before the scheduled 2011
presidential elections (ref C). According to xxxxxxxxxxxx, the
opposition is interested in receiving support from the army and the
police for a transitional government prior to the 2011 elections.
xxxxxxxxxxxx asserted that this plan is so sensitive it cannot be
written down. (Comment: We have no information to corroborate that
these parties and movements have agreed to the unrealistic plan
xxxxxxxxxxxx has outlined. Per ref C, xxxxxxxxxxxx previously told us
that this plan was publicly available on the internet. End comment.)
7. (C) xxxxxxxxxxxx said that the GOE has recently been cracking down
on the April 6 movement by arresting its members. xxxxxxxxxxxx noted
that although SSIS had released xxxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxxx \"in the
past few days,\" it had arrested three other members. (Note: On
December 14, we pressed the MFA for the release of xxxxxxxxxxxx and
xxxxxxxxxxxx, and on December 28 we asked the MFA for the GOE to
release the additional three activists. End note.) xxxxxxxxxxxx
conceded that April 6 has no feasible plans for future activities.
The group would like to call for another strike on April 6, 2009, but
realizes this would be \"impossible\" due to SSIS interference,
xxxxxxxxxxxx said. He lamented that the GOE has driven the group's
leadership underground, and that one of its leaders, xxxxxxxxxxxx, has
been in hiding for the past week. 8. (C) Comment: xxxxxxxxxxxx
offered no roadmap of concrete steps toward April 6's highly
unrealistic goal of replacing the current regime with a parliamentary
democracy prior to the 2011 presidential elections. Most opposition
parties and independent NGOs work toward achieving tangible,
incremental reform within the current political context, even if they
may be pessimistic about their chances of success. xxxxxxxxxxxx
wholesale rejection of such an approach places him outside this
mainstream of opposition politicians and activists.
SCOBEY02008-12-307386PGOV,PHUM,KDEM,EGAPRIL 6 ACTIVIST ON HIS U.S.
VISIT AND REGIME CHANGE IN EGYPT

Brzezinski’s Feared “Global Awakening” Has Arrived Monumental worldwide rallying cry for freedom threatens to derail new world order agenda

Paul Joseph Watson - Global Research, January 29, 2011

Zbigniew Brzezinski’s much feared “global political awakening” is in full swing. Revolts in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia and other countries represent a truly monumental worldwide rallying cry for freedom that threatens to immeasurably damage the agenda for one world government, but only if the successful revolutionaries can prevent themselves from being co-opted by a paranoid and desperate global elite.

During a Council on Foreign Relations speech in Montreal last year, co-founder with David Rockefeller of the Trilateral Commission and regular Bilderberg attendee Zbigniew Brzezinski warned of a “global political awakening,” mainly comprising of younger people in developing states, that threatened to topple the existing international order.

Reading the full extent of Brzezinski’s words in light of the global revolts that we now see spreading like wildfire across the planet provides an astounding insight into how crucially important the outcome of this phase of modern history will be to the future geopolitical course of the world, and in turn the survival and growth of human freedom in general.

For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive… The resulting global political activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity, cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world painfully scarred by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial domination… The worldwide yearning for human dignity is the central challenge inherent in the phenomenon of global political awakening… That awakening is socially massive and politically radicalizing… The nearly universal access to radio, television and increasingly the Internet is creating a community of shared perceptions and envy that can be galvanized and channeled by demagogic political or religious passions. These energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top of which America still perches…

The youth of the Third World are particularly restless and resentful. The demographic revolution they embody is thus a political time-bomb, as well… Their potential revolutionary spearhead is likely to emerge from among the scores of millions of students concentrated in the often intellectually dubious “tertiary level” educational institutions of developing countries. Depending on the definition of the tertiary educational level, there are currently worldwide between 80 and 130 million “college” students. Typically originating from the socially insecure lower middle class and inflamed by a sense of social outrage, these millions of students are revolutionaries-in-waiting, already semi-mobilized in large congregations, connected by the Internet and pre-positioned for a replay on a larger scale of what transpired years earlier in Mexico City or in Tiananmen Square. Their physical energy and emotional frustration is just waiting to be triggered by a cause, or a faith, or a hatred…

[The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low. To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.

Zbigniew Brzezinski

It is important to stress that Brzezinski was not lauding the onset of this “global political awakening,” he was decrying it. As one of the of the chief architects of the “existing global hierarchy” to which he makes reference, Brzezinski himself is under direct threat, as is the continuing ability of the global elite in general to control world affairs.

Brzezinski laments the fact that the Internet has made it almost impossible for the global elite to control the political environment, to control the thoughts and behavior of one million people, which is precisely why Egypt moved to shut down the world wide web yesterday in a desperate bid to prevent activists from organizing against the state.

  

As is routine whenever riots and revolutions suddenly appear as if out of nowhere, history warns us to not take what we see at face value, and to recall the numerous contrived “color revolutions” that have served little purpose other than to allow the IMF/World Bank global elite to overthrow a rogue power and seize the country via the backdoor through puppet regimes it subsequently installs.

However, the domino-like effect of the global revolution that has accelerated in recent weeks seems to be born out of a genuine, grass roots, organic yearning for real freedom, and an end to dictatorial regimes that the United States and the banking elite have helped to prop up.

The global revolt spreading across the Middle East and North Africa, having already touched Europe with the riots and strikes in Italy, France, Greece and the United Kingdom last year, is characterized as a backlash against dictatorship, police brutality, and political repression. These factors have been seething undercurrents of resentment for years, but only thanks to greater education and easier access to information and the ability to organize through the Internet has a new generation of activists finally said enough is enough. Spiraling food prices, fuel inflation, lower wages and high unemployment have also played a central role.

As Andrew Gavin Marshall writes in his excellent article, Are We Witnessing the Start of a Global Revolution?, “We must not cast aside these protests and uprisings as being instigated by the West, but rather that they emerged organically, and the West is subsequently attempting to co-opt and control the emerging movements.”

In the case of Egypt, Yemen and Tunisia, all three regimes have enjoyed the multi-decade support of the US military-industrial complex. All three were fully compliant vassal states for the new world order. There was no need for contrived or staged “color revolutions” to be prompted by the global elite in these countries.

Indeed, the die was cast when the Obama administration expressed its support for 30 year dictator Hosni Mubarak in the form of a PBS interview yesterday when Vice-President Joe Biden implied that the protesters demands were illegitimate.

“The reflex action of the imperial powers is to further arm and support the oppressive regimes, as well as the potential to organize a destabilization through covert operations or open warfare (as is being done in Yemen),” writes Marshall. “The alternative is to undertake a strategy of “democratization” in which Western NGOs, aid agencies and civil society organizations establish strong contacts and relationships with the domestic civil society in these regions and nations. The objective of this strategy is to organize, fund and help direct the domestic civil society to produce a democratic system made in the image of the West, and thus maintain continuity in the international hierarchy. Essentially, the project of “democratization” implies creating the outward visible constructs of a democratic state (multi-party elections, active civil society, “independent” media, etc) and yet maintain continuity in subservience to the World Bank, IMF, multinational corporations and Western powers.”

Remember – any country that retains its own sovereignty, acts primarily in its own interests and attempts to build itself up as a strong, prosperous, and culturally strong state is an enemy to the globalists. The international hierarchy demands compliance, dependence, weakness and a dilution of heritage and culture in order for every nation to be enveloped within the sphere of global government control.

Make no mistake about it, we are seeing a global revolution, the age of rage is falling upon us like dominoes reaching to every corner of the planet. Whether or not the outcome will topple the current global hierarchy, as Zbigniew Brzezinski fears, remains to be seen, but it will surely depend upon who controls the new governments that will replace the ousted rulers – the people who started the process of change, or the World Bank, IMF, NGO’s and the rest of the global elite who are desperate to save their world government agenda from being derailed.

 

The Protest Movement in Egypt: "Dictators" do not Dictate, They Obey Orders

Michel Chossudovsky - Global Research, January 29, 2011

The Mubarak regime could collapse in the a face of a nationwide protest movement... What prospects for Egypt and the Arab World?

 "Dictators" do not dictate, they obey orders. This is true in Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria.   

Dictators are invariably political puppets. Dictators do not decide.

President Hosni Mubarak was a faithful servant of Western economic interests and so was Ben Ali.

The national government is the object of the protest movement.

The objective is to unseat the puppet rather than the puppet-master.

The slogans in Egypt are "Down with Mubarak, Down with the Regime". No anti-American posters have been reported... The overriding and destructive influence of the USA in Egypt and throughout the Middle East remains unheralded. 

The foreign powers which operate behind the scenes are shielded from the protest movement.

No significant political change will occur unless the issue of  foreign interference is meaningfully addressed by the protest movement.

The US embassy in Cairo is an important political entity, invariably overshadowing the national government. The Embassy is not a target of the protest movement.

In Egypt, a devastating IMF program was imposed in 1991 at the height of the Gulf War. It was negotiated in exchange for the annulment of Egypt's multibillion dollar military debt to the US as well as its participation in the war. The resulting deregulation of food prices, sweeping privatisation and massive austerity measures led to the impoverishment of the Egyptian population and the destabilization of its economy. The Mubarak government was praised as a model "IMF pupil".

The role of Ben Ali's government in Tunisia was to enforce the IMF's deadly economic medicine, which over a period of more than twenty years served to destabilize the national economy and impoverish the Tunisian population. Over the last 23 years, economic and social policy in Tunisia has been dictated by the Washington Consensus.

Both Hosni Mubarak and Ben Ali stayed in power because their governments obeyed and effectively enforced the diktats of the IMF. 

From Pinochet and Videla to Baby Doc, Ben Ali and Mubarak, dictators have been installed by Washington. Historically in Latin America, dictators were instated through a series of US sponsored military coups. In todays World, they are installed through "free and fair elections" under the surveillance of the "international community".

Our message to the protest movement:

Actual decisions are taken in Washington DC,  at the US State Department, at the Pentagon,  at Langley, headquarters of the CIA. at H Street NW, the headquarters of the World Bank and the IMF.

The relationship of "the dictator" to foreign interests must be addressed. Unseat the political puppets but do not forget to target the "real dictators". 

The protest movement should focus on the real seat of political authority; it should target the US embassy, the delegation of the European Union, the national missions of the IMF and the World Bank.

Meaningful political change can only be ensured if the neoliberal economic policy agenda is thrown out.

Regime Replacement 

If the protest movement fails to address the role of foreign powers including pressures exerted by "investors", external creditors and international financial institutions, the objective of national sovereignty will not be achieved. In which case, what will occur is a narrow process of "regime replacement", which ensures political continuity. 

"Dictators" are seated and unseated. When they are politically discredited and no longer serve the interests of their US sponsors, they are replaced by a new leader, often recruited from within the ranks of the political opposition.

In Tunisia, the Obama administration has already positioned itself. It intends to play a key role in the "democratization program" (i.e. the holding of so-called fair elections). It also intends to use the political crisis as a means to weaken the role of France and consolidate its position in North Africa:

"The United States, which was quick to size up the groundswell of protest on the streets of Tunisia, is trying to press its advantage to push for democratic reforms in the country and further afield.

The top-ranking US envoy for the Middle East, Jeffrey Feltman, was the first foreign official to arrive in the country after president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was ousted on January 14 and swiftly called for reforms. He said on Tuesday only free and fair elections would strengthen and give credibility to the north African state's embattled leadership.

"I certainly expect that we'll be using the Tunisian example" in talks with other Arab governments, Assistant Secretary of State Feltman added.

He was dispatched to the north African country to offer US help in the turbulent transition of power, and met with Tunisian ministers and civil society figures.

Feltman travels to Paris on Wednesday to discuss the crisis with French leaders, boosting the impression that the US is leading international support for a new Tunisia, to the detriment of its former colonial power, France. ...

Western nations had long supported Tunisia's ousted leadership, seeing it as a bulwark against Islamic militants in the north Africa region.

In 2006, the then US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, speaking in Tunis, praised the country's evolution.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton nimbly stepped in with a speech in Doha on January 13 warning Arab leaders to allow their citizens greater freedoms or risk extremists exploiting the situation.

"There is no doubt that the United States is trying to position itself very quickly on the good side,..." " AFP: US helping shape outcome of Tunisian uprising emphasis added

Will Washington be successful in instating a new puppet regime?

This very much depends on the ability of the protest movement to address the insidious role of the US in the country's internal affairs.

The overriding powers of empire are not mentioned. In a bitter irony, president Obama has expressed his support for the protest movement.

Many people within the protest movement are led to believe that president Obama is committed to democracy and human rights, and is supportive of the opposition's resolve to unseat a dictator, which was installed by the US in the first place.

Cooptation of Opposition Leaders

The cooptation of the leaders of major opposition parties and civil society organizations in anticipation of the collapse of an authoritarian puppet government is part of Washington's design, applied in different regions of the World.

The process of cooptation is implemented and financed by US based foundations including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and  Freedom House (FH). Both FH and the NED have links to the US Congress. the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the US business establishment. Both the NED and FH are known to have ties to the CIA.

The NED is actively involved in Tunisia, Egypt and Algeria. Freedom House supports several civil society organizations in Egypt.

"The NED was established by the Reagan administration after the CIA’s role in covertly funding efforts to overthrow foreign governments was brought to light, leading to the discrediting of the parties, movements, journals, books, newspapers and individuals that received CIA funding. ... As a bipartisan endowment, with participation from the two major parties, as well as the AFL-CIO and US Chamber of Commerce, the NED took over the financing of foreign overthrow movements, but overtly and under the rubric of “democracy promotion.” (Stephen Gowans, January « 2011 "What's left"

While the US has supported the Mubarak government for the last thirty years, US foundations with ties to the US State department and the Pentagon have actively supported the political opposition including the civil society movement.  According to Freedom House: "Egyptian civil society is both vibrant and constrained. There are hundreds of non-governmental organizations devoted to expanding civil and political rights in the country, operating in a highly regulated environment." (Freedom House Press Releases).

In a bitter irony, Washington supports the Mubarak dictatorship, including its atrocities, while also backing and financing its detractors, through the activities of FH, the NED, among others. 

Under the auspices of Freedom House, Egyptian dissidents and opponents of Hosni Mubarak were received in May 2008 by Condoleezza Rice at the State Department and the US Congress. They also met White House National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, who was "the principal White House foreign policy adviser" during George W. Bush's second term. 

Freedom House’s effort to empower a new generation of advocates has yielded tangible results and the New Generation program in Egypt has gained prominence both locally and internationally. Egyptian visiting fellows from all civil society groups received [May 2008] unprecedented attention and recognition, including meetings in Washington with US Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, and prominent members of Congress. In the words of Condoleezza Rice, the fellows represent the "hope for the future of Egypt."

Freedom House, http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=66&program=84 (emphasis added).

Political Double Talk: Chatting with "Dictators", Mingling with "Dissidents"

The Egyptian pro-democracy delegation to the State Department was described by Condoleezza Rice as "The Hope for the Future of Egypt".

In May 2009, Hillary Clinton met a delegation of Egyptian dissidents, several of which had met Condoleezza Rice a year earlier. These high level meetings were held a week prior to Obama's visit to Egypt:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised the work of a group of Egyptian civil society activists she met with today and said it was in Egypt’s interest to move toward democracy and to exhibit more respect for human rights.
The 16 activists met with Clinton and Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman in Washington at the end of a two-month fellowship organized by Freedom House’s New Generation program.
The fellows raised concern about what they perceived as the United States government distancing itself from Egyptian civil society and called on President Obama to meet with young independent civil society activists when he visits Cairo next week. They also urged the Obama administration to continue to provide political and financial support to Egyptian civil society and to help open the space for nongovernmental organizations which is tightly restricted under Egypt’s longstanding emergency law.
The fellows told Clinton that momentum was already building in Egypt for increased civil and human rights and that U.S. support at this time was urgently needed. They stressed that civil society represents a moderate and peaceful “third way” in Egypt, an alternative to authoritarian elements in the government and those that espouse theocratic rule. (Freedom House, May 2009)
During their fellowship, the activists spent a week in Washington receiving training in advocacy and getting an inside look at the way U.S. democracy works. After their training, the fellows were matched with civil society organizations throughout the country where they shared experiences with U.S. counterparts. The activists will wrap up their program ... by visiting U.S. government officials, members of Congress, media outlets and think tanks." (Freedom House, May 2009, emphasis added)

These opposition civil society groups --which are currently playing an important role in the protest movement-- are supported and funded by the US. They indelibly serve US interests.

The invitation of Egyptian dissidents to the State Department and the US Congress also purports to instil a feeling of commitment and allegiance to American democratic values. America is presented as a model of Freedom and Justice. Obama is upheld as a "Role Model".

`

Egyptian dissidents, Fellows of Freedom House in Washington DC (2008)

US Secretary of StateHillary Clinton speaks with "Egyptian activists promoting freedom and democracy, visiting
through the Freedom House organization, prior to meetings at the State Department in Washington, DC, May 28, 2009".
[Compare the two pictures 2008 delegation received by Condoleezza Rice, 2009 delegation meets Hillary Clinton in May 2009.

Hillary Clinton and Hosni Mubarak in Sharm El Sheik, September 2010

Condoleeza Rice chats with Hosni Mubarak?  " Hope for the Future of Egypt".

Condoleezza Rice addresses  Freedom House. 4th from left

The Puppet Masters Support the Protest Movement against their own Puppets

The puppet masters support dissent against their own puppets? 

 Its called "political leveraging", "manufacturing dissent".  Support the dictator as well as the opponents of the dictator as a means of controlling the political opposition.

These actions on the part of Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy, on behalf of the Bush and Obama administrations, ensure that the US funded civil society opposition will not direct their energies against the puppet masters behind the Mubarak regime, namely the US government.

These US funded civil society organizations act as a "Trojan Horse" which becomes embedded within the protest movement. They protect the interests of the puppet masters. They ensure that the grassroots protest movement will not address the broader issue of foreign interference in the affairs of sovereign states.

The Facebook Twitter Bloggers Supported and Financed by Washington

In relation to the protest movement in Egypt, several civil society groups funded by US based foundations have led the protest on Twitter and Facebook:

"Activists from Egypt's Kifaya (Enough) movement - a coalition of government opponents - and the 6th of April Youth Movement organized the protests on the Facebook and Twitter social networking websites. Western news reports said Twitter appeared to be blocked in Egypt later Tuesday." (See Voice of America, ,Egypt Rocked by Deadly Anti-Government Protests

Reads; Kifaya (Enough)

The Kifaya movement, which organized one of first actions directed against the Mubarak regime in late 2004, is supported by the US based International Center for Non-Violent Conflict . Kifaya is a broad-based movement which has also taken a stance on Palestine and Us interventionism in the region.  

In turn, Freedom House has been involved in promoting and training the Middle East North Africa Facebook and Twitter blogs:

Freedom House fellows acquired skills in civic mobilization, leadership, and strategic planning, and benefit from networking opportunities through interaction with Washington-based donors, international organizations and the media. After returning to Egypt, the fellows received small grants to implement innovative initiatives such as advocating for political reform through Facebook and SMS messaging.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=66&program=84 (emphasis added)

From February 27 to March 13 [2010], Freedom House hosted 11 bloggers from the Middle East and North Africa [from different civil society organizations] for a two-week Advanced New Media Study Tour in Washington, D.C. The Study Tour provided the bloggers with training in digital security, digital video making, message development and digital mapping. While in D.C., the Fellows also participated in a Senate briefing, and met with high-level officials at USAID, State [Department] and Congress as well as international media including Al-Jazeera and the Washington Post.http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=115&program=84&item=87 emphasis added

One can easily apprehend the importance attached by the US administration to this bloggers' "training program", which is coupled with high level meetings at the US Senate,  the  Congress, the  State Department, etc. 

The role of the Facebook Twitter movement as an expression of dissent, must be carefully evaluated in the light of the links of several civil society organizations to Freedom House (FH), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and  the US State Department.  BBC News World (broadcast in the Middle East) quoting Egyptian internet messages has reported that "the US has been sending money to pro-democracy groups." (BBC News World, January 29, 2010)

The Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt constitutes the largest segment of the opposition to president Mubarak. According to reports, The Muslim Brotherhood dominates the protest movement.

While there is a constitutional ban against religious political parties Brotherhood members elected to Egypt's parliament as "independents" constitute the largest parliamentary block.

The Brotherhood, however, does not constitute a direct threat to Washington's economic and strategic interests in the region. Western intelligence agencies have a longstanding history of collaboration with the Brotherhood. Britain's support of the Brotherhood instrumented  through the British Secret Service dates back to the 1940s. Starting in the 1950s, according to former intelligence official William Baer, "The CIA [funnelled] support to the Muslim Brotherhood because of “the Brotherhood’s commendable capability to overthrow Nasser.”1954-1970: CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood Ally to Oppose Egyptian President Nasser, These covert  links to the CIA were maintained in the post-Nasser era.

Concluding Remarks

The removal of Hosni Mubarak has, for several years, been on the drawing board of US foreign policy.

Regime replacement serves to ensure continuity, while providing the illusion that meaningful political change has occurred.

Washington's agenda for Egypt has been to "hijack the protest movement" and replace president Hosni Mubarak with a new compliant puppet head of state.

Washington's objective is to sustain the interests of foreign powers, to uphold the neoliberal economic agenda which has served to impoverish the Egyptian population. 

From Washington's standpoint, regime replacement no longer requires the installation of an authoritarian  military regime as in the heyday of US imperialism, It can be implemented by co-opting political parties, including the Left, financing civil society groups, infiltrating the protest movement and manipulating national elections.

With reference to the protest movement in Egypt, President Obama stated in a January 28 video broadcast on Youtube: "The Government Should Not Resort to Violence".

The more fundamental question is what is the source of that violence? Egypt is the largest recipient of US military aid after Israel. The Egyptian military is considered to be the power base of the Mubarak regime. 

 "The country’s army and police forces are geared to the teeth thanks to more than $1 billion in military aid a year from Washington. ... When the US officially describes Egypt as “an important ally” it is inadvertently referring to Mubarak’s role as a garrison outpost for US military operations and dirty war tactics in the Middle East and beyond. There is clear evidence from international human rights groups that countless “suspects” rendered by US forces in their various territories of (criminal) operations are secretly dumped in Egypt for “deep interrogation”. The country serves as a giant “Guantanamo” of the Middle East, conveniently obscured from US public interest and relieved of legal niceties over human rights." (Finian Cunningham, Egypt: US-Backed Repression is Insight for American Public, Global Research, January 28, 2010).

America is no "Role Model" of Democratization for the Middle East. US military presence imposed on Egypt and the Arab World for more than 20 years, coupled with "free market" reforms are the root cause of State violence.

America's intent is to use the protest movement to install a new regime. 

The People's Movement should redirect its energies: Identify the relationship between America and "the dictator". Unseat America's political puppet but do not forget to target the "real dictators". 

Shunt the process of regime change.

Dismantle the neoliberal reforms.

Close down US military bases in the Arab World.

Establish a truly sovereign government.