Greens debate the Libya NFZ

Over at the Daily Maybe Jim Jepps has set out his case against a No-Fly Zone (NFZ) over Libya.

I set out the case for an Arab League led NFZ here a last week.

Jim's case is basically that intervention would be counter-productive as it would be seen as giving Western backing for the revolutions which would rob them of all credibility. The fact that the Arab League has called for the NFZ is undermined by their own status as dictatorships.

In short, the West is bad, the Arab League is bad, and therefore anything they do is going to be bad.  By extension, the UNSC is also bad (containing as it does the USA, UK, Russia and China) so anything they decide is also bad.

In cognitive therapy, we find that absolutist dichotomies like this cause dysfunctional behaviour and emotions. Therapy is aimed at transforming these categories into more detailed analysis of the structure of systems. Rather than saying "I am 100% right" or "I am 100% bad", we try to identify self-defeating ways of thinking, and off-set them with more useful ways of thinking.

Jim (JJ) starts by saying " the Libyan regime has, from the outset, painted this rebellion as a Western backed coup." 
RL: Well, he may have done. Jim may be able to find evidence for that. What I remember most vividly is that Gaddafi has accused the revolutionaries of being Al Qaeda, clearly in the hope of bringing the West over onto his side.


JJ: "We have seen pilots take their jets to Malta rather than bomb their own people. Those pilots considering similar defections are likely to think again if their next mission is to defend Libya against foreign aggressors."  
RL: In fact the more important reason for the cessation of early pilot defections is that some 30 pilots were shot by Gaddafi for refusing to obey orders to bomb their own people.


JJ: "[The NFZ is] a response to current, awful, events not a long term plan." 
RL: Well, yes, it is a response to events, although the agonising slowness of the response of the international community, reminiscent of watching a snail trying to ride a small bicycle through cold treacle, is making it into some kind of long term response. 


In fact the UN's Responsibility to Protect (R2P) does set out a framework for the response. True, the details of R2P are sketchy, which is why the Green Party's Global Human Rights Index is so relevant to R2P, adding flesh to the UN's skeleton plan to reduce the capacity for states to do harm to their populations.


Jim correctly points out that the revolutionaries have given contradictory signals about intervention. In the early days, when they were winning, they were saying "Stay out, we can do it ourselves". 


Now, the Interim Transitional National Council (TNC) is asking for help, as are the revolutionaries who are actually engaged with Gaddafi's forces, watching his fighter bombers come over and bomb them at will.  There may be some who are still saying they can do it themselves, but I cannot recall any recently, and I would expect them to come more from the safety of Benghazi and the country, rather than from the front line.


It is not reasonable to identify these differences of opinion as "factions". They are differences of opinion based on different situations and perceptions.


JJ: I'm for the rebels against the regime, obviously, but Western intervention inevitably means strengthening the hand of one faction over others. I'm unconvinced we know what we're doing, or that if we do, we have the best interests of Libyan people at heart.


RL: The best interests of the Libyan people are to be rid of Gaddafi. Period. His air superiority is one of the factors that are helping him to prevail. Therefore a NFZ would assist the best interests of the Libyan revolution. The NFZ does not guarantee success for the revolutionaries, but it certainly would greatly strengthen their hand by helping to level the playing field.


JJ: "what would the wider impact of military intervention in the revolution mean? In Tunisia, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Yemen the political implications of Western interference in what feels like a very home grown series of revolutions would be significant."
RL: This is bypassed by the fact that the above-mentioned countries, through the Arab League, are calling for the NFZ. Syria was  the most reluctant supporter of the NFZ, which may not be unconnected with the suspicion that it is sending arms to Gaddafi by sea as we speak. 


I am amazed that the Arab League, which is as Jim says a convocation of dictators, many of whom are in the queue waiting for their own revolution, came out for the NFZ. It suggests that diplomats are not 100% bad people. They are no worse than us, in that they can see unacceptable crimes against humanity taking place and be moved by humanity to put an end to it. 


Which is not to say that there is no realpolitik behind the AL decision. No doubt someone can dig some up. But let us not fall into the trap of saying "They are wily Arabs, up to no good". Let us give them credit for having human emotions too.


So what is the non-interventionist solution?


Jim offers two hopes: that the revolutionaries continue their brave stuggle, and that yet more Libyan servicemen and women lay down their arms or defecting with their equipment.


Well, amen to that, but the signs are at the moment that Gaddafi's tanks, aircraft, sea power and total disregard for humanity and rationality is prevailing, and that he will roll on into Benghazi and crush the revolution as surely as the Soviets crushed the Hungarian uprising in 1956. 


The consequence of a Gaddafi victory of this kind is that dictators everywhere, especially those in the MENA states, will watch and learn. They will learn that if they use lethal force on non-violent demonstrators, and even turn their army onto them, putting tank fire in city squares, and bomb their own cities, the international community will issue words of condemnation, but will not intervene.


This means that revolutions to come will find they face more lethal force, and probably be put down. Dictators everywhere will take heart. The Arab Spring could turn into an Arab Winter.




The revolutionaries need help. A NFZ is necessary, but not sufficient. Other measures - a sea blockade to keep Syrian arms out, and a supply of anti-tank missiles, are also needed.


I am a long term Green and a Quaker, and I have opposed every war that my country has entered into in my lifetime. However, the Quakers found out in Pennsylvania that 100% pacifism is impossible when you are in Government. There are circumstances where force is necessary, and this is one of them. Not just for Libyans, but for the movement of democracy that is stirring throughout the world.


Ultimately, isolationism is not a tenable Green position. Our political philosophy is founded on ecology, the recognition of the planet as a system where everything is interconnected. Libya is not a far-away country of which we know nothing. Libyan revolutionaries are our family (as indeed, are Gaddafi's supporters, although they are sadly misled). What happens in Libya will echo and re-echo around the world.


Gaddafi must be defeated.  The NFZ is a necessary, but not sufficient cause for his defeat.


In a way, this debate among greens is only marginally relevant, and I am not interested in continuing this debate to the nth degree.


For me, the most important thing right now is to block Gaddafi's broadcasts by TV and radio - a simple, feasible, non-violent intervention. I hope that Jim and other non-interventionists will at least join me in calling for this to take place.

Ask Cameron to block Gaddafi's TV transmissions

I have just sent this email to my MP through WriteToThem.com
You can too.

Dear MP

Action to block broadcasts of Gaddafi’s Al Jamahiriya 2 TV station

I would like to support the good intentions of the Prime Minister in the meeting of the emergency EU Council on March 11th, noting with approval that there is consensus that Gaddafi is no longer the legitimate ruler of Libya, and also the decision to extend the sanctions to include several more entities and individuals.

I share the Prime Minister’s frustration at the EU Council’s failure to recognise the TNC as the legitimate representative body for the Libyan people, and the Council’s inability to agree on a No-Fly Zone over Libya. It is to be hoped that the meeting today of the League of Arab States will endorse the NFZ, and it is also to be hoped that they will be prepared to implement this themselves, since this would avoid the perception that the Arab Spring Uprising is contaminated by being allied to Western interests.

I would be grateful if HMG will now consider the option of jamming the broadcast frequencies used by Gaddafi’s Al Jamahira 2 State TV, and also his state radio broadcasting frequencies.  You will know that Gaddafi has been jamming the TV signal of Al-Jazzeera, together with their website. and also the TV signal of Al Arabiya.  The reason to take reciprocal action is clear, and should not be contentious.

Gaddafi is mentally unstable, showing symptoms of denial, delusion, paranoia, and irrational aggression. It is likely that these arise not from psychosis, but in context of an borderline unstable extraverted personality exacerbated by 41 years of unopposed power. It is clearly inappropriate for a deluded individual to be permitted to spread his delusions through a TV station, especially when they result in extending the severe suffering of Libyans on both sides.

Given the difficulty in getting the international community to agree to action under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, even though it is mandated by the UN’s Responsibility to Protect, greater reliance must be placed on the melting away of support for Gaddafi from those people in Tripoli who still support him, together with defections from the Army and other official supporters. To some extent he is maintaining that support by his TV broadcasts. Al Jamahiriya provides an alternative view of what is happening in Libya that accords with Gaddafi’s delusions. It is reasonable to suppose that deletion of this source of misinformation will undermine such support for Gaddafi as still exists among Libyans, who will then be able to reflect more rationally on their situation.

I hope therefore that the FCO will give this matter energetic and supportive consideration. In view of the (understandable) anxieties of some about military action, it should be possible to get EU ministers to agree this easily implemented, non-violent intervention into the situation relatively easily, by a series of telephone conversations.  As with the NFZ, it would be better for the action to be carried out by the Arab League, but if this would take too much time, the EU or even UK + France could reasonably carry it out.

Many thanks for passing this message on to the Foreign Secretary.

Sincerely

.....

Here is a page with technical details of which wavebands need blocking.

Call to Amr Moussa for Arab League to implement Libyan NFZ`

To Amr Moussa Secretary General of the League of Arab States

media_general.dept[at]las.int 

Sir

I write as a Green Party political activist in the UK, deeply concerned at the developing humanitarian situation in Libya.

I am glad that the League of Arab States has recognised that there is a clear legal basis for intervention in Libya under the UN's Responsibility to Protect. This is already being implemented in the seizure of Gadafi's financial assets.

The Libyan people have made very clear that they do not want foreign soldiers on their soil, but equally clear that they want and need protection from Gaddafi's bombers under the UN's Responsibility to Protect. Specific calls for a No Fly Zone from the Libyan Interim Transitional National Council are uncertain, but it is clear that if Gaddafi uses his jets to bomb civilian areas, those calls will come, and so the international community had best make preparations.

I am aware of all the dangers and difficulties of a NFZ, not least the perception that it can be interpreted as yet another intervention by the West in Arab affairs.

Therefore it is be much to be preferred that the Arab League itself should deliver the NFZ. You have rightly concluded that you are in favour of it.

I very much hope that the proposal that the Arab League undertake to implement a Libyan NFZ, if requested by the Libyan people and the UNSC, on the agenda of your meeting this week, and that plans for implementation and even moving hardware into position takes place so that delivery is possible as soon as the decision is taken.

Given the enormous stakes that hang on the outcome of the Libyan uprising, and given the existence of the Responsibility to Protect policy, the international community has an obligation to implement a No-Fly Zone, and the best agency to deliver it is the Arab League.

Sincerely

Libyan No-Fly Zone: Making the Decision

...is not easy, so we need to balance up all the factors.

The negative side is a longish list:

1. It requires first an attack on radar and Surface-to-Air missile stations. Some installations will probably  be in civilian areas, so it is likely that civilian women and children will be killed, either from stray/misdirected missiles, or because they live too close.
2. It requires attacks on pro-Gaddafi air force bases. More deaths.
3. It requires enforcement, which means a lot of flying over a very extensive border and land area.
4. There could be combat with Libyan jets, if any air bases were able to fly
5. There is no absolute certainty that Gaddafi would leave in a short time, although it is pretty certain that a NFZ would speed his departure.
6. It requires UNSC authority. Russia and China are not enthusiastic about a NFZ.
7. Interestingly, the Arab League does seem at present to be in favour of the NFZ.
8. If it is not made clear that the single exception to a NFZ would be a plane carrying Gaddafi into exile, it could make him even more likely to stay.
9. Here's STRATFOR identifying more difficulties.

Against this there are arguments in favour of a NFZ.

1. From reports in both mainstream and social media, it is pretty clear that while the Libyan revolutionaries are absolutely against an Iraq-style US invasion, reports do suggest that at least some of the rebels want a NFZ. This dates right back to the beginning of the rebellion, because Gaddafi was flying in mercenaries. In fact one airport at least was blocked by parking lorries on the runway (amazing how easy it is to disable an airstrip).
2. A NFZ would stop Gaddafi being able to bomb and strafe Libyan sites and forces. So far he has used his air force to attack demonstrators, and recently to attempt to bomb arms dumps held by rebels, although there is a tendency for his pilots to miss their targets accidentally on purpose.
3. A NFZ is also necessary for food aid to be brought in through a Turkish/Egyptian enforced NFZ.
4. In coming days, we could see the airforce used to attack rebel forces, and it is not impossible for Gaddafi to order bombing of whole towns. In that event, the pressure for a NFZ on humanitarian grounds would become intense.
5. There is a big strategic question. Dictators all over the world are watching developments closely. They have seen Bin Ali and Mubarak fall, and now we have a self-deluded dictator in Gaddafi who has chosen to stay and fight his own people. If Gaddafi succeeds, he will set a precedent for other dictators to use his strategy, which will mean immense suffering and protracted revolutions.
6. Using the criterion that we must weigh up the number of deaths caused by imposition of a NFZ against the number of deaths caused by not applying a NFZ, it is pretty clear that the NFZ would have an outcome of save a significant number of lives, arguably in Libya, but overwhelmingly in the long run as other dictators learn that Gaddafi's strategy fails.

Therefore, even though I am a Green and a Quaker, and would very much prefer not to "start from here", it seems to me that the Green Parties, and all other progressives and humanitarians of the world should back the NFZ under these following conditions:

1. Absolutely no US land invasion
2. NFZ to be requested by the provisional/transitional Libyan Government in Benghazi.
3. This request to be endorsed by a vote from the rebels themselves 
4. Arab League or other non-US/UK states to lead the NFZ (though it may be necessary to call on Western logistic and intelligence resources).
5. UNSC to authorise the action

This will of course take time, and it is of course infinitely preferable that while waiting, the Libyan people will be able to do the job by themselves without outside intervention. Which they might be able to do, especially if it is known in Tripoli that a NFZ is in the pipeline.

As ever, the international community is lagging behind events, responding  to them as they occur. The remedy for this is for the UN to develop a protocol that makes clear to all rulers exactly what UN action will follow from which actions.

The UN also needs a similar algorithm to  prevent the slide into dictatorship.

And it needs a Global Index of Human Rights to provide a continuous downwards pressure on human Rights abuses. So that eventually, we do not have to keep meeting situations that demand ugly decisions involving the use of force.

[updated 8th March]

Arab Spring Uprisings: Revolution in 21 difficult steps

I don't know about you, but I have been getting a bit stressed out by Col Gaddafi. And Mubarak before him, and Bin Ali before him.

These dictators have to some, possibly measurable, extent, been pissing off the whole world.

It is developing into some kind of tragic, ritual game, played as follows:

1. Dictator suppresses free speech, uses media as personal megaphone
2. Locks up anyone who criticises without trial, but with secret police
3. Tortures people
4. Steals peoples' money and has $billion personal balances
   
5. After about a generation of this kind of thing, people gather in the streets and say "Enough!"
6. Dictator responds with riot police, teargas, water cannon and batons.
7. People persist in ever greater numbers.
8. Dictator opens prisons, pays released criminals, thugs and plainclothed police officers to attack people.
9. People beat off attacks
10. Dictator uses live rounds and people get killed.
11. When enough people have been killed, the world's media begins to take an interest.
12. Pressure builds up on the politicians to Do Something
13. A round of talks and meetings ensues
14. Condemnatory statements of increasing severity are read to the dictator.
15. Eventually his assets are frozen, travel bans issued (hopefully with exemptions for dictators fleeing into exile).
    
16. Demonstrators continue despite fatalities. 
17. Police stations & Government buildings will be set on fire, but still the demonstrations are otherwise non-violent.
18. Members of the police, armed forces, and Government begin to ally with the people.
19. Dictator makes speeches of defiance, promising to stay forever.
20. Dictator falls.
21. General rejoicing, laced with uncertainty as to what to do next.

The problem we have here is that we have (almost) three down, but a hell of a lot of other dictators to go.  The Index below shows 17 countries who are possible candidates.

Rather than play Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya out another 14 times, it would be nice to have an orderly transition.

The demonstration in numbers is a necessary human socio-political function. It is our equivalent of a swarm.

So, let's sketch out an alternative scenario:

1. After about a generation of political abuse, people gather in the streets and say "Enough!"
2. When the police judge that there are enough people there to be a bit of a problem for traffic &c, they introduce elected speakers for the swarm to members of government.
3. Talks about talks lead to talks themselves.
4. The process of negotiation is continued in the body of the crowd, being fully in the picture of what is being discussed.
5. An opening is made in Government to accept the speakers for the people (who can go home at any time of their choosing, continuing their participation online.
6. The speakers (suggested number: 3-8) negotiate directly with Government at Cabinet level.

OK so far?
Suggested negotiation aims:

1. Resignation of President, and selected members of the Cabinet. (aiming high here)
2. release of all political prisoners. 
3. Disbanding of secret police.
4. Free press and internet comms.
5. Elections as soon as possible.
6. Radical transition to a full employment, stable, sustainable economy.
7. &c

I know. You are thinking,  
"Nice idealistic idea, but no idea of the practicalities. It just ain't gonna happen".

OK. Not like that, directly. But we can have a think about what it would take to bring this about.

At the UN level, the changes required are relatively straightforward
The change would come at point 10 above:
10: Dictator uses live rounds and people get killed.

At this point the UN should automatically trigger meetings that have been in preparation since the demonstrations began. Meetings of the Regional Organisations, UNSC, UNHRC which will be able to order the deployment of some or all of these measures:

1. Immediate asset freeze, this having been warned of prior to the event.
2. Immediate travel ban on the dictator and high level associates except for purposes of exile.
3. Targeted sanctions on the regime, designed not to affect the people.
4. Plans and preparations for a no fly zone, should that be requested by the people, and any provisional government.

These measures to be put in place as disincentives to violence. At all times the dictator should have the opportunity for residence abroad in a country of his choice.

See also:
Preventing Dictatorships
Global Human Rights Index

Weighted Index of Unrest in Middle East

This nifty index of unrest is from the Economist. It's a pity they were not able to include an unemployment column, because that is another important factor.

Seeking Gaddafi information from Barclays Bank

Just sent an email to Barclays bank Press Office, Gemma.walmsley@barclays.com

Hi Gemma

Further to our recent telephone conversation, I am seeking information on the UK-held assets of Colonel Gaddafi.

I have discovered the following facts relating to the relations between Barclays and Libya:

Barclays is today close to securing a capital injection worth more than £6.5bn from governments, including Libya today http://bit.ly/fr8pdo.

Barclays Bank paid $298m fine to settle criminal charges that it broke US economic sanctions on Libya  http://bit.ly/h2JvPp (report Aug 16 2010).

It is therefore possible that Gaddafi, his family, and high office holders of the Libyan regime have assets in British banks, including Barclays.

I would be grateful for the following information:

a) has the Coalition Government yet made any approach to Barclays to identify these assets?
b) will Barclays be taking immediate action to identify accounts held by Gaddafi, his family, and high office holders of the Libyan regime. with a view to freezing them as a way to bring about Gaddafi's early exile from Libya?

Thank you for any help you may be able to give on these urgent matters.

Sincerely
Richard Lawson

UK holds the key to Gaddafi's dismissal.

UK banks have a large amount of business with Gaddafi, and could freeze them progressively until he leaves Libya.

I have been reading interesting news reports about Muammar Qaddafi  from 2009.

In the Indie, Ian Birrell describes corruption, stagnation, crumbling infrastructure (including oil installations) Unemployment, poverty, and power cuts.

At the same time, 
Gaddafi is like a pools winner, who has spent, spent, spent a fortune – some say $250bn, others $1trillion – of oil money, much of it blown on vainglorious ventures. It is easy to dismiss him as a clown, with the batty badges, the crazy costumes, the female bodyguards. But he is a brilliant political operator, as one would expect of a man who seized power in his twenties and has clung on to it for four decades. He devised a bewildering form of government that claims to be a unique form of direct democracy but, in reality, places him at the heart of everything, supported by his security machine – the one part of state apparatus that works. The military has been purged, Islamic fundamentalists crushed, opponents executed and rivals played off against each other.

The Times reports in Feb 2009 that Gaddafi was planning a $12millon hand bonanza (?shouldn't that be bonus?) to the people. I don't know what became of it.

The Guardian reveals the close financial ties that Gaddafi has with Britain.
Asked about Libya's relations with Britain, Gaddafi said: "Very good. We have economic relations, investment relations, British companies, banks and, indeed, investments over there in England.

This means that our beloved Government hold the key to the fate of the Libyan people. All Mr Cameron has to do is to pick up the phone, and say,


"Now look here, Muammar, this has gone far enough. It has got to stop. You have got to get on the next plane to Venezuela. No, no listen. Listen. Will you stop screaming please. Well put someone else on. Will you please stop banging the telephone on the desk. Hello? Are you there?  Is there anyone else on the line? [cue: 100 eavesdroppers freeze] 

Hello? Is that the receptionist? Could you tell the Leader, when he is calmed down, that if he leaves Libya within 4 hours we will not touch the many personal and family accounts. 

For every hour that passes after that, we will freeze a progressive percentage of his personal assets, and such assets of the Libyan nation as could be used for violent purposes. The rate is yet to be finalised, but he should consider 5% per hour as a starting point in his thinking. 

Have you got that? You'd better read it back to me...Yes, well done. Good luck. Goodbye."

I'm serious about this. The UK has leverage on him. Real leverage.

We just have to make him understand that the longer he stays, the poorer he grows.

We can press the Government through our MPs and direct tweets to @WilliamJHague for him to put in motion, tomorrow, progressive freezing of Gaddafi's assets held in British financial institutions.

Let's do it.

[More: Much Libyan cash is in US banks]

What can be done to stop the likes of Gaddafi?

It is very clear indeed that when any regime opens fire on its own unarmed citizens, it has lost all legitimacy as a Government.

International Law needs to be amended with a new clause that makes it a crime for any Government to cause or permit its agents to do that.

There may even be clauses in current law to cover that. Is so, they need to be made explicit.



Of course, the snail like pace of law means that it would not be much use in real time.

An immediate countermeasure is needed. Prime candidate would be for governments to order banks to freeze assets of a ruler who orders or permits atrocities that we see happening in Libya and other countries - as they would any other known criminal.




Libya raises again the need for our Armies to swear that they will not use lethal force on civilians, particularly UK citizens.

Switzerland moved quickly to freeze Mubarak's accounts immediately he left office, with the UK Govt trailing along a few days later to freeze the $5bn he has stashed here.


The carnage in Libya is heartbreaking. The law must change to make it less likely to happen in future.

Middle East Crisis: Danger and opportunity. New economics needed to complete the job

@NevineZaki






As a small child, I was once impressed to see a jet of marmalade, a sticky, fragrant volcano applying itself to the ceiling of our kitchen when the weight was blown off the top of my mum's pressure cooker.

Hold that thought.

Our whole world is changing.

Old regimes are falling, and around the world, the same thought is passing through millions of minds:

"Maybe we are not powerless after all. 

Could be we really can change things. 

We have political power  - if we all act together".

We in the UK are not going to succeed in regime change - that requires decades of repression on an Egypt scale - but we can hope to change the destructive financial policies of the Coalition.

Common purpose is the key the success to this amazing revolution.

Of course, the new forms of communication have played a part. The old power of state media is undermined by social networks. But it was the sense of common purpose that gave the Tunisians and Egyptians uncommon courage and persistence, born out of deep desperation resulting from decades of repression. The oppressors were the focus, enabling the extraordinary social unity, shown most memorably in the photo above of Christian youths forming a protective circle around praying Muslims,

They will need more of that unity of purpose if they are to succeed in the post-revolution phase, and this is not going to be easy.

There is a tendency for people to go a bit dis-inhibited after the removal of a repressive regime. Authority is no longer respected. Crime can flourish, both small and big. In the place of a single dominant political party, a plethora of parties arises, some built on naked self interest. The corporate giants will try to move in again, paying politicians to act in corporate interests.

In short, revolutions can be disappointing. Disorder flourishes, and people get fed up with crime and disorder, a strong man or strong party take over, and the cycle begins again.

Common purpose is the way out of this vicious cycle.

The spirit of co-operation that was manifested in Tahrir Square can and must be maintained in mending, not just the politics, but the economics of the renewed nations.

Unemployment and its consequence, poverty and hardship, are very common features of the youth uprising.

The ruling classes response to that is to promise that sooner such demonstrators who do have jobs get back to work, the sooner the economy will pick up &c.


"Believe us. Trust us". er...no.

The revolution deserves better than this. It deserves a new economics.

Insofar as the revolution is a response to unemployment, it is a rejection of conventional economics, which is based on market values, and uses unemployment as an instrument to keep wages down and profitability up.

The new economics begins by asking, what do we need in order to live?

The answer is clear. We need water, food, houses, energy, and waste management. After that we are free to be with friends, make music and dance.

In the Middle East, water, food and waste recycling are the prime commodities for the people to provide. Local circumstances will show up other needs.

If there is a task to be done, it is the job of the Government to ensure that the work gets done. Governments must invest in broad, employment intensive infrastructure projects to secure access to water and food.

In creating a new sense of purpose, of everyone working together on projects that have an immediate benefit to society, the power of the people is focused on construction rather than crime, self-interest and destruction, the unity of the revolution is maintained, and a new social and economic order can emerge, not just in the Middle East, but around the world.


More:
Overview of the new economics
Water projects as channel of co-operation

How does democracy cope with non-democratic parties?

Mohmoud Salem is a most excellent blogger writing as @sandmonkey on Twitter.

He has been tweeting from the front line throughout the Egyptian Revolution.

Yesterday he kicked off a debate with a thought-provoking series of tweets, which I have copied and  pasted here below. He puts his finger on a real dilemma:

How does democracy  cope with parties that could become undemocratic, 

or have undemocratic features?

He is thinking about the Muslim Brotherhood.

Here are his thoughts:

---

Ok, Sandmonkey prediction: 

If we end up getting democracy through the military, we will end up with the Turkey Model. 

Wanna Take bets? 

They will set up a constitution that won't allow Muslim Brotherhood specifically to come to power & will give themselves coup powers if that [happens].

And that's what the US is probably negotiating with them about. How to be the firm-handed daddy caretaker of democracy 

It's a very attractive balance for them: 

Provide democracy, maintain their hold on power when they deem necessary, & no Islamists.

And it would be acceptable to the majority of the people who are fearful of sharia-based* government taking over for a war on Israel. So u will have a system that's secular, that will advance the rights of women & Christians, but will not provide equal treatment to Islamists

So, the question is, if we are democrats, would that be fair? 

Would we take away some rights from some of us for "the greater good"?  It's conflicting for me, because on one hand I am very much pro individual rights & liberties on very absolutist terms without compromise.

But on the same time, I can see a significant majority of the Egyptian people wanting it this way. It will make many people comfortable.

Which brings us to the question: [does] supporting democracy mean supporting what the majority always want? Or... is it supporting the democratic process instead, even if the majority is against it? 

Let's flip it: if an Islamist government reached power through democratic process pledging to end democarcy, should the army stop it?

Not to mention the bigger problem: what kind of democracy allows a non-democratic entity the power to revoke democracy as they please? 

And what if they look at this is a compromise first-step, letting the system exist & then amending it later like Turkey is doing?

And this is where my mind comes and goes. I know what I believe in, equal rights for all, until some try to take the rights of others. All I know is: if we were put in this situation, what we choose will forever define us as people. It's a huge test

----

An intense discussion followed, which you can find by going here  and scrolling back to Feb 14.

So this is the problem: how does democracy cope with its non-democratic or anti-democratic constituents?   

We have a Western example here: Hitler's Nazis were voted into parliament, but then took over the state by the Enabling Act of 1933 which allowed him to exercise dictatorial power. 

One defence against this is a good constitution that forbids that kind of thing. However, a Constitution can be overthrown (the Egypt Revolution is having to do that). But a well-designed democratic constitution does draw a line in the sand.

Funnily enough, the USA Constitution, with its separation of Church and State, and separation of powers between the Legistature, Executive and Judiciary, is a good model for anyone flexing their fingers in front of a blank screen entitled EGYPT CONSTITUTION. 

Benjamin Franklin did not expect the USA to last as long as it did. The neo-cons have undermined the Constitution with their accursed Patriot Act, and the nation is so infested with fundamentalists, of both free market and Bible varieties, and so brainwashed by Murdoch's Fox News, that it is clearly going down the pan.

However, back to Sandmonkey's question. 

First, the price of freedom, and democracy, is continual vigilance. Democracy is something that exists in the doing, not in the theorising.

Second, Democracy is not a Thing that Exists anywhere. It is just the assertion that the power of any state resides ultimately with the people. The Egypt Revolution has just demonstrated that to perfection. When enough people say No to the state, the state has to back down.

Failed revolutions, as in Iran after the elections, and in Burma in 2007, fail because not enough people take to the streets, whether out of fear or because they have not yet suffered enough. As a general rule, it takes a generation to pass before people say "enough".

Having said that, the manifestations of democracy are variable. In the UK we have a clapped out voting system a feeble Parliament, a sclerotic Civil Service and an out of touch Government. But we do have the ability to kick one set of idiots out and let in a different set of idiots.

The virtue of this Box and Cox arrangement is that at least the Prime Minister gets changed. Being in power for too long damages the brain. The leader gets used to being surrounded by sycophants. The amygdala of the brain probably becomes overactive. That's why the Pharaohs and many other rulers became "gods", and why triumphant Roman Generals has a slave whispering "Remember Caesar that thou art mortal" to them.

So the number one virtue of any vaguely functioning democracy lies in the ability to truncate the term in office of the resident. That is why no US President is allowed to serve more than 8 years. We should have the same rule in the UK. But then, we do not have a written Constitution.

Addressing the Egyptian problem, if they go for a more truly democratic system of voting, Proportional Representation, the Muslim Brotherhood is unlikely to form a Government outright.

If they use the crap FPTP system, they could do so.

The trade off is that under PR, the MB is likely to form part of many Governments.

Here I should say that the Muslim Brotherhood is more like a Muslim Bogeyman to be used as such by the US right. Their speaker comes across as a cuddly teddy bear, and he is continually distancing himself from extremists. We can accept that, but have also to accept that it could change in future. I have been debating with a US Navy doctor, right-wing as they come, and a fundamentalist Christian. His position is that a Muslim country cannot be entrusted with democracy, in case it comes up with an Islamist Government, as in Gaza. There are two problems with an MB dominated Egypt: one is that they could terrorise women, gays &c. The other is that the loonies in the State Department will be itching to bomb the country back to the stone age.


The power of the MB is likely to be greater if Egypt generates a shed-load of secular political parties, which will split the secular vote, and let the MB walk through. The best outcome in my view is to form an umbrella group from the activists of Tahrir Square, to fight the coming election on the basis of addressing unemployment. This national unity group would outnumber the MB.

In a second Parliament, it is likely that the umbrella group will split naturally into a few major political parties.

So the approach to the democracy puzzle set out by @sandmonkey is firstly pragmatic: Just do it. Do your best, use all your passion and intelligence to persuade the people that a democracy with separation of religion from the state is the best way forward. Then, when in, revolutionise the economy to address unemployment, poverty and the real ecological issues in the country, especially water and food.

Go for unity and pragmatism, not ideological purity and perfection.

Finally in addressing the riddle of democracy: what to do if the people vote for anti-democratic forces?

The Constitution is one defence.

Debate is the second defence.

Which requires a forum for clear public debate, that is, a truly free press and broadcasting system, that is open to all comers, including the non- or anti-democratic forces.

In the end, the question is an antinomy - a contradiction between two statements that seem equally reasonable. There is no intellectual resolution to the question. The only resolution is in practical political action.
 
------------------------

* However there is evidence that a majority in Egypt would welcome Sharia punishments (for others, obvs). I file that with the fact that a big chunk of Brits would bring back hanging and flogging. Put it down to poor education.

Egypt: way forward through maintaining political unity

There have been about 50 revolutions throughout the world since 1990 according to this list.

I was going to study what happens after a revolution, but I can see that this would need a lifetime of study.

It is obvious that each revolution has its own unique setting, characteristics and results, but at the same time, there is a common pattern, with early conflicts over betrayal of the ideals of the revolution, followed by disorder, followed by imposition of order by a strong man or strong party.

The ongoing Egyptian revolution has its own beauty in its non-violent nature, apart from the defensive measures the pro-democracy protesters had to take in response to the thugs. It also gained from the excellent oath taken by Egyptian Army not to kill their fellow-citizens, and this offers hope that Egypt will avoid this chaos-strong man pattern, thus setting an example for the world to follow.

Right now the Egypt revolution is justifiably in a mood of euphoria and a tremendous sense of unity. The physical , life threatening dangers are, hopefully, over.

The next phase means that they are entering the next level of difficulty in this existential game.


Politics.

The revolutionaries have to decide what to do now. Before, opinion was united around the simple insistence that Mubarak must Go.

Now opinion will be spread out on a spectrum between those who want an immediate overthrow of the Cabinet, the regime and all its policies, and those who want Egypt to get back to normal life as soon as possible.

An important part of this spread will be the formation of political parties in preparation for early elections. I know only too well, from 30 years of experience in a marginalised political party, how toxic relations between political parties can become. Personality and ego comes to the fore and reason goes out of the window. Competition is everything: if another party says white, you say black.

If the majority, secular part of Egypt's January 25 movement fragments into many disparate parties, the Muslim Brotherhood could end up as the largest single party in the post-revolutionary Parliament. I think it is highly unlikely, for several reasons, that they will create a theocracy like Iran, but their predominance would feed the paranoia of the US pro-Israeli right, which could lead to further military tensions in the region at a time when we need a popular movement of cooperation focussed on the foundations of the real economy, especially water.

Clearly, what happens now is up to the Egyptian people, but from a distance, which is often a good place to see the whole picture, the best political outcome would be for the secular (with or without the Muslim Brotherhood Jan25 revolutionaries to form an umbrella group to contest the next election, focused on the the 7 Demands, and on a radical direct approach to nation's economic and infrastructure problems: food prices, energy and water management.

Within the term of the post-Revolutionary Parliament, differences would coalesce into the natural political  formation of political parties, who would contest the following election in the usual way.

Egypt: what happens next?

< photo of Tahrir Sq thanks to @mohamed.

Huge joy and relief now that Mubarak the dictator, the torturer, the seller of arms to geonocidal regimes is gone.

The central aim of the revolutionaries has been achieved, but there are 6 other aims to be addressed, and this is going to take time. It is going to need patience, persistence, and hard, boring political work.

His regime remains, headed by the unlovely Omar Suleiman, guaranteed by the Army.

We can have faith in the intelligence and courage of the Egyptian people, and we can have confidence in the power of democracy to work through the many problems that still remain.

Now that the State apparatus has been decapitated, we may hope that Mubarak's associates, clients, police and thugs will fade. They are bullies, and therefore cowards. Without an authoritarian structure, their confidence will bleed away. There are thousands of political prisoners yet to be released.  There is still a risk that Suleiman might dare to run a counter revolution. There are many problems to be faced, not least Egypt's unemployment problem.

There will be a revision of the whole Middle East  peace process, and we must hope that the shift in the balance of power will force Israel to negotiate in good faith at last.

Much to be done. But the sheer scale of the achievement of the pro-democracy demonstrators, their unity, their humanity and their courage gives people, especially the youth, throughout the world renewed confidence in the power of non-violent direct action.

Thank you, young people of Egypt, for your sacrifice, courage and persistence. You have not just liberated your country, you have given the whole world hope.

Egypt: US & UK Governments value "stability" over democracy.

We share the bitter disappointment of the pro-democracy protesters of Egypt over Mubarak's refusal to go.

It is unbelievable that Obama has been so mealy mouthed over Egypt. He has $1.3 billion a year leverage with the Egyptian army, which means that he could pick up the phone and politely inform them that either they give Mubarak the push, or participate in an austerity budget of their very own.

Obama and Hilary Clinton are not well served by the State Department, which ignored clear warnings that Egypt was going to blow, from the respected, Working Group on Egypt.

It is obvious that the Adminstration chooses to prioritise their need to have a dictator who serves their Middle East strategy over the raw uncertainties of democracy. This need is so strong that it causes them to blank the warnings of the Working Group, and to be blind to the obvious fact that their man, and his regime, is history.

It is fear of the Muslim Brotherhood,  that drives their policy. This despite the fact that US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said during a House Intelligence Committee hearing Thursday that Egypt’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement was "a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam."

In failing to support democracy, the Administration makes it more likely that a few frustrated youth will turn to militant Islam if Mubarak's regime crushes the protest. Already they are arresting and torturing many of them. 

The State Department is clinging to a dead strategy. as we learned a few days ago, Israel has been unyielding in its negotiations. Wikileaks show that the Palestinian Authority was offering huge concessions to Israel,  without any reciprocity from the Israelis.

A democratic Egypt, with a less complaisant attitude towards Israel's position, would re-balance negotiations and would offer a chance of a meaningful progress towards a just peace. In this climate,
Israel would no longer be able to carry out massacres wars like Operation Cast Lead with impunity.

Right wing ideologues identify the Muslim Brotherhood with Islamic extremism. They see Egypt as the new Iran, despite the manifest difference, in that in Iran Ayatollah Khomeni was handed Iran on a plate. In Egypt, the MB is one party among a secular democratic movement. True, the MB is better organised, but if the secular revolutionaries maintain their unity, they will take a majority of seats.

In essence, the position of right wing ideologues requires that any nation with a significant Muslim population should be denied democracy. Muslims, in their view, must be ruled by a pro-western dictator, no matter how ugly, because they cannot tolerate that Muslims should elect a Muslim party.

They see the world in absolutes - any Muslim political party means Al Qaeda. There is no shading, no continuum between moderate and extreme.

This is the mindset of the policy wonks in the State Department who missed the Working Group's warnings, and are now desperately trying to preserve some continuation of the Mubarak regime.


The sobering conclusion is that the US Government, which of course includes the UK Government, both value "stability" over democracy.


It is very sad. And very worrying.

More on Mubarak's arms exports to genocidal Rwandan regime

In researching the question of Mubarak's arms sales to the genocidal Rwanda regime, I contacted Linda Melvern, author of the book "A People Betrayed, the role of the West in Rwanda's genocide".

She writes:

"I have no evidence to show that Egypt broke the arms embargo imposed by the Security Council on May 17 - but do have evidence which might be useful to you and which I outline below in paragraphs taken from the revised edition of A People Betrayed which was published last year. I would be most grateful if you use any material you make clear where it came from...It is worth noting (see below) that representatives of the Rwanda government that was perpetrating genocide were welcomed to Cairo during the genocide".

Extract from the book :

Six weeks before the genocide, in February 1994, another contract was concluded between the Ministry of Defence in Cairo and the Rwandese government for $1 million of mortars and ammunition. Rwanda asked for urgent delivery. For the regime in Kigali, the Rwandan embassy
in Cairo was pivotal. During the genocide, some US$1.4 million was transferred there, the money coming from the Banque Nationale du Rwanda, passing through the Rwandan embassy in Nairobi, then on to Cairo, where it was paid into the Commercial International Bank of Egypt. Whether or not this money was to pay for weapons has not been ascertained.

The RPF [the anti-genocide forces of Kagame, who is now President, and, sadly, on the path that leads to dictatorship] later discovered that the governments of France and Egypt had hosted high-level talks with members of the interim government and appeared ‘to be masterminding the current proposal for the deployment of a UN intervention force as a result of those talks’. The RPF wanted both Egypt and France to be censured.

It was business as usual for the extremists, relying on two important allies – France and Egypt. Throughout the genocide, with money looted from government coffers, the extremists resupplied their stocks of weapons on the open arms market. There are letters and invoices, bank statements and money transfers, a paper trail to show that, once the genocide was under way, $US13 million of Rwandan government money passed through the Banque Nationale de Paris. Money was
also transferred from the government system to Rwandan embassies in Washington, Moscow, Kinshasa, Bonn and Tokyo and to the Rwandan consulate in Pretoria.
 
The [UN] Security Council set up an inquiry into the arming of the former Rwandan government forces. This International Commission of Inquiry was chaired by Ambassador Mahmoud Kassem of Egypt, an appointment made by Boutros-Ghali, to collect information and investigate reports relating to the supply of arms to former Rwandan government forces.


RL: Brilliant. The Egyptian UN Secretary General appoints an Egyptian to investigate an Egyptian/French arms deal to genocidal regime.

How Obama ignored warnings of Egypt's political crisis

Months before the Egypt pro-democracy protest kicked off, Obama was warned by a bipartisan group, the Working Group on Egypt who pleaded for a change of policy. On the 31st January 2011, it warned that the administration "may acquiesce to an inadequate and possibly fraudulent transition process in Egypt."

Read the link above to an illuminating report in the Washington Post about the group. Although stuffed with esteemed Middle East experts, the US State Department blanked its input.

These same State Department policy wonks are still in place, still engineering Obama's pusillanimous wait-and-see response to the situation.

Clearly, Obama should choose to back democracy over dictatorship. His failure to do so is a betrayal of his claim of ushering in real change, on behalf of the people. His policy is based on "No, we cannot help the people in Tahrir and throughout the world who are suffering under repressive regimes, because the collective of policy wonks in the State Department are obsessed with maintaining the status quo in the Middle East.

Obama has to choose between the embodiment of his political values, and Mubarak

Egypt and the world today is at a critical stage in the struggle of democracy against autocracy.


BBC TV News led just now reported that Mubarak appears to have convinced America that if he went now, chaos would follow.

The signs are that Obama is still making up his mind.

In weighing up the balance of risks, the strong probability is that the consequences of Mubarak's staying in power is far more chaotic than if he goes now.

If Mubarak stays, a magnificent, inspiring, courageous and non-violent uprising, (revolution many call it), will be crushed. The world has seen what has happened, in the streets, the violence first from uniformed police, and then the same violence from the same men out of uniform, backed by violent prisoners let out of jail deliberately by the police.

The world has witnessed what has been happening it in their living rooms, if only the sanitised, pasteurised, homogenised fully skimmed aspartame sweetened variety presented on their TV screens.

Hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world have got closer in to Tahrir Square, seen the photographs, the videos, have watched this amazing demonstration of the courage of the human spirit through a stranger's mobile phone.

In Tahrir (Liberation) Square there is an expression of freedom that offers hope to the world. Not just the festival aspects, and the conviviality. Not just the songs, the poetry, the free haircuts. It offers the greatest hope where Muslims and Christians protect each other.

A reversal of the norms of hatred and violence that is the bread and butter of world politics. Wael Ghonim, the journalist arrested for 12 days, said "People believe there's bad at the core of everything. It isn't true".


This non violent revolution cannot be allowed to fail. The BBC was interviewing people in cafes and villages who wanted the country to get back to normal. These are people who watch Egyptian State TV. Egypt cannot go back to normal, if it means Mubarak still presides. Mubarak's rule is not normal.

If the non violent revolution is allowed to fail, a violent revolution will occur further on down the line.

That is not a threat, because the vast majority of the protesters are non violent. But there will be some individuals there who, returning home, and hearing that one by one  their comrades have been picked off, imprisoned, tortured, disappeared...some there will be who will turn to religion for consolation. And of these, some of these will turn to Wahabism. Not a lot. But Al Q'aeda only needs a few really disturbed souls to work its insane destructiveness.

Which means that if he chooses the dictator Mubarak over the community in Tahrir square, Obama the good man, the community leader, the calm brown man with a nice smile and a poetic delivery, Obama will be creating yet more enemies; yet more 9/11s, more 7/7s, yet more white flashes, more torn limbs and screams, more weeping, more anger. Obama you will be leading in the dance of death every time you step out with Michelle on the polished dance floor.

How can Obama choose an old dictator who does fake elections, political imprisonment, and torture? A man who sold arms to the side that was doing the genocide in Rwanda, almost certainly in breach of UN arms embargo?

How? Because he is surrounded by a world of wonks: highly intelligent, super-analytical paranoid minds who share one fixed idea:  

The solution to the IsraelPalestine problem is military domination.

Again, the opposite is true.

The solution to the IsraelPalesine problem lies in community co-operation and an end to strategic confrontation.

Obama, it's your choice.

You have before you, on the one hand

an ugly, bloodstained dictator who is manipulating the American media to believe the lie that he represents order. A dictator who sold arms to the genocidal Rwandan Army.

On the other hand,

the people, exactly the same people you worked with as a community leader who have made it very clear indeed that they will die rather than see him stay in office, but that if he goes, they will go home and prepare for democracy.

Your choice. You are the President.

Choose Mubarak, and you are casting a cold shadow over all the earth. 

Choose right, and you can change the course of history for the better, by letting the world see the strength of real democracy.

Mubarak Rwandan sanctions busting: UN should act to remove him?

[updated 9 Feb]

The United Nations might be able bring a case against Egyptian President Mubarak for breaking a 1994 UN arms embargo on Rwanda.

In January 1994 the Egyptian military lined up a deal with Gratien Kabiligi, Chief of Military Operations within the High Command of the Rwandan Army. He was tried for genocide, and found not guilty.

UN Resolution 198(21994) came into force in May 17th 1994 and the relevant paragraphs read:

13. ...all States shall prevent the sale or supply to Rwanda by
their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or
aircraft of arms and related matériel of all types, including weapons and
ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary police equipment and
spare parts;


15. Calls upon all States, including States not Members of the United
Nations, and international organizations to act strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the present resolution, notwithstanding the existence of any
rights or obligations conferred or imposed by any international agreement or any
contract entered into or any licence or permit granted prior to the date of the
adoption of this resolution;



[Update 9 Feb)
It is possible that Mubarak's regime broke the law in sending arms to Rwanda, since although the initial deals may have been set up in January 1994, the shipments would have been going in after May17th, given the time required to negotiate the details, assemble the shipments, and transport them to Rwanda.

I have been searching for hard evidence that Egyptian arms broke the embargo.

Nothing direct has yet come up, but one piece of information suggests that Mubarak may have beaten the deadline. The Egyptians prided themselves on speedy delivery. OrwellToday quoted Linda Melvern's book, showing that in 1990 a $5.9 million arms order was dispatched on the same day that the contract was signed. If the deal went through with the same speed in 1994, Mubarak would be clear.

The possibility still remains that a tail end of the order 1994 deal was delivered later. The UN committee charged with monitoring the embargo might have information. See below for action that you could take.


Source
The original source for this information comes from Ennahar, an Algerian newspaper which was tweeted by Frank Habineza, Leader of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda and President of the Africa Greens Federation.

Action

It is to be hoped that this information may be used by the UN to persuade President Mubarak to leave office immediately, in exchange for a case against him for sanctions breaking being dropped.

Mubarak’s obstinacy in remaining in office is endangering the legitimate democratic wishes of the people of Egypt. We reject the suggestion that it is necessary for stability that he remain in office until elections, and that the reverse is true, since defeat of the non-violent uprising of young Egyptian may be reasonably be expected to increase rather than decrease the risk of violent Islamic extremism in Egypt.



Go to the UN contacts page and enter your details and then paste in this message:


A Security Council Committee was established pursuant to resolution 918 (1994). 
Do the minutes establish whether any shipments of arms to Rwanda from Egypt were delivered after May 17 1994?

Thank you

Egypt's Boutros-Ghali sold $26million arms to Rwandan killers

While researching the involvement of Mubarak with supplying arms to Rwanda, I find a book by Linda Melvern, A People Betrayed:

In 1990, it was Boutros-Ghali who approved a secret $26 million arms sale to Rwanda, weapons stockpiled by the Hutu as part of the fairly public, longterm preparations for the genocide. (French banks, for their part, helped launder the international aid money that was used to pay for that and other arms shipments, including the purchase of some 580,000 machetes from China.) And it was Boutros-Ghali who, as the genocide progressed, ignored the increasingly urgent faxes from his peacekeeping commander begging for more men, gasoline, and equipment.

Boutros-Ghali was UN Secretary General 1992-6, presiding over the inadequate response ot the Rwandan genocide.

:(

Mubarak broke UN embargo in $6M arms to Rwanda deal?

[find a summary of this material here]
I have just read this story in Ennahar, an Algerian newspaper. The link was tweeted by Frank Habineza* (@Habinef), Leader of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda,  and I've pasted it below, cutting it down to its essentials, and a few tidyings-up which I have [put in] for clarity.


The conclusions are affected by ongoing research posted below.

Hosni Mubarak broke UN arms embargo  

This information is related to arms sales contracts made by Hosni Mubarak and his Minister of Defense and Military Production Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, according to secret U.S. intelligence documents and other [documents] from United Nations Institutions and International Criminal Court.

Dated January 11, 1994, while war raged in Rwanda between Tutsis and Hutus, Rwanda's ambassador in Cairo sent a letter to Tantawi, asking him to prepare for hosting a military delegation from Rwanda, including Colonel Gratien Kabiligi, head of the delegation and head of operations at the General Staff of the Rwandan army, and Lt. Col. Cyprien Kayumba, Director of Finance, Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Rwanda. 

Delegations will arrive in Cairo during the week of 1/17 to 1/23/1994 for a period of one week. 

What was surprising in that letter from the Ambassador of Rwanda is that it was for the Egyptian Minister of Defense Mohamed Hussein Tantawi through an official at the Egyptian Ministry of Defense, General Seyed Sami, in his capacity responsible for relations with friendly countries, instead of being sent according to the diplomatic norms.

This letter comes after a letter sent by the Office of Egyptian Ministry of Defense who expressed his agreement for the sale of arms to the Rwandan army while the United Nations had imposed an embargo on arms sales to Rwanda during the period of civil war where massacres were committed by the Rwandan army against Hutu tribe and the Tutsi rebels.

A correspondence was forwarded to the Egyptian Embassy in Kigali by the ICC on the movement of Rwandan military officials in Cairo under the arms purchase agreements in Egypt. The Egyptian ambassador, Djamel Chahine, in a letter, pretended to ignore the repeated trips to Cairo by Colonel Gratien Kabiligi.

Another secret document from the inquiry of the French parliament on the involvement of France and some Egyptian officials in the sale of arms to Rwanda shows operations transfer of large sums from Cairo to Credit Lyonnais Bank in France. The commission asked officials of the bank but they refused to talk under the bank secrecy.

Other documents of U.S. intelligence, dated March 31, 1994, reveal the involvement of Egypt in arms deals for the Rwandan army, accused of war crimes. According to the document, after the pressures on France, Germany and Belgium to respect the decisions of the UN arms embargo on Rwanda, the latter resorted to Egypt and Israel.

A contract, according to the document, signed by Hosni Mubarak with the Rwandan army March 30, 1992 for $ 6 million.

The contract included significant quantities of heavy and light weapons, ammunition and explosives.

Ismail Fellah
Ennahar 

---

*Frank is also:

Founding President, Democratic Green Party of Rwanda,

President of the African Greens Federation,

Co-Africa Representative to Global Greens Coordination (GGC)

Notes 

Clearly this needs further research. The key thing is that the UN now comes into the picture, and may be able to exert some leverage in the vital space between Mobarak's bum and the Presidential chair.

The UN embargo  from UNSC Resolution 918, came in to force on 17 May 1994, so Mubarak may have got his order in before, though the physical deliveries may have come in during the sanction period.

The relevant paragraphs of UNSC Resolution 198 
reads:
13. ...all States shall prevent the sale or supply to Rwanda by
their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or
aircraft of arms and related matériel of all types, including weapons and
ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary police equipment and
spare parts;

15. Calls upon all States, including States not Members of the United
Nations, and international organizations to act strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the present resolution, notwithstanding the existence of any
rights or obligations conferred or imposed by any international agreement or any
contract entered into or any licence or permit granted prior to the date of the
adoption of this resolution;

Therefore it is clear that Mubarak's regime broke the law in sending arms to Rwanda, since although the initial deals may have been set up in January 1994, the shipments would have been going in after May17th.

---

Incidentally, in researching this I found also on the Ennahar site: 

Mubarak deposited huge amount of platinum in a Swiss bank within 1 year of taking office.