10:20AM
Ayman Nour hospitalized
By 
Issandr El Amrani | Egypt US
Issandr El Amrani | Egypt US
Imprisoned Al ghad leader Ayman Nour was admitted to hospital last night after he became ill while being interrogated:
Ask yourselves: what kind of a prosecutor interrogates people at 1am?
The WaPo has responded swiftly, continuing its Egypt campaign with these strong words:
I'd like to take the WaPo to task on a few issues. First, the line below is rather over-dramatic:
Comparing Ayman Nour to Rafiq Hariri is to say the least a stretch. I understand they're trying to rally people to the cause, but come on.
This also irked me:
Many Americans keep bringing on the aid issue with regards to Egypt. First, if you think about it, the importance of aid is overstated. Between regime survival and aid, Mubarak knows what to choose. The economy might suffer, but he can always reallocate resources to make sure the people that count for him still get the cash. Secondly, US aid to Egypt is mostly tied to Camp David -- the US is obligated to give it by treaty if it wants to maintain Camp David. Proponents of a more muscular policy in promoting human rights and democracy in Egypt are going to have to find alternatives, or start arguing for the cancellation of Camp David. A much better place to start would be a serious look at military aid policy under Camp David, bilateral military relations, weapon deals and so on. There is a complete lack of transparency on that aspect of the relationship on both sides, yet it's the most important thing that has sustained the regime for over a quarter-century. Remember, many torturers in the Arab world are being trained by the US and equipped by the US. Why not start there?
Update: There are rumors floating around that Nour may not be in hospital anymore and that he may have started a hunger strike, as he threatened to do two weeks ago. I do not know any more than this but will post when I do, which probably won't be until tomorrow. Today's press only reported what I wrote above.
Nour's wife, Gamila Ismail, told Reuters Nour had fallen ill during questioning at a State Security Prosecution office in the early hours of Tuesday.
"He was sweating, vomiting and holding his left arm," Ismail told Reuters, adding that Nour has a history of diabetes and heart problems.
She said Nour began feeling pain at 1.00 a.m. and his personal doctor advised he be taken to a nearby hospital.
Ismail said officials made no decision until three hours later, when they decided Nour could go to the prison hospital. But initially he declined to go, she added.
Ask yourselves: what kind of a prosecutor interrogates people at 1am?
The WaPo has responded swiftly, continuing its Egypt campaign with these strong words:
ON MONDAY President Bush again called on Egypt to "lead the way" toward democratic change in the Middle East. Apparently Hosni Mubarak, the country's leader for the past 24 years, wasn't listening. Later that same day, Mr. Mubarak's agents renewed their "interrogation" of Ayman Nour, the imprisoned head of the liberal Tomorrow Party. Six hours later -- at 1 a.m. -- Mr. Nour, a diabetic with a history of heart trouble, was "sweating, vomiting and holding his left arm," his wife told the Reuters news agency. Authorities refused his doctor's request that he be hospitalized; instead, he was taken Tuesday to a prison clinic. The Egyptian Human Rights Organization has issued a statement warning that Mr. Nour's life is in danger. Mr. Mubarak's relationship with the United States, and the U.S. aid that props up his regime, should be in danger too.
I'd like to take the WaPo to task on a few issues. First, the line below is rather over-dramatic:
In truth, he is in jail because, like Rafiq Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister who was assassinated last week, he offered a fresh democratic alternative in a Middle East stirred by the votes of Iraqis and Palestinians.
Comparing Ayman Nour to Rafiq Hariri is to say the least a stretch. I understand they're trying to rally people to the cause, but come on.
This also irked me:
Mr. Mubarak is no longer testing Mr. Bush; he is spitting in his face. It's a daring, maybe desperate act for a 76-year-old despot who would not survive without billions in U.S. subsidies. Egypt's future -- and Ayman Nour's life -- may depend on Mr. Bush's response.
Many Americans keep bringing on the aid issue with regards to Egypt. First, if you think about it, the importance of aid is overstated. Between regime survival and aid, Mubarak knows what to choose. The economy might suffer, but he can always reallocate resources to make sure the people that count for him still get the cash. Secondly, US aid to Egypt is mostly tied to Camp David -- the US is obligated to give it by treaty if it wants to maintain Camp David. Proponents of a more muscular policy in promoting human rights and democracy in Egypt are going to have to find alternatives, or start arguing for the cancellation of Camp David. A much better place to start would be a serious look at military aid policy under Camp David, bilateral military relations, weapon deals and so on. There is a complete lack of transparency on that aspect of the relationship on both sides, yet it's the most important thing that has sustained the regime for over a quarter-century. Remember, many torturers in the Arab world are being trained by the US and equipped by the US. Why not start there?
Update: There are rumors floating around that Nour may not be in hospital anymore and that he may have started a hunger strike, as he threatened to do two weeks ago. I do not know any more than this but will post when I do, which probably won't be until tomorrow. Today's press only reported what I wrote above.
Reader Comments (6)
Exactly - I could never work out what the direct and implicit relationship between USAID and Mubarak's rule really was. It seems there is a huge misunderstanding as to what it takes to remain in power, which is basically a loyal power structure under you and the security apparatus to keep social unrest in check. How USAID - which is spent in a way designed to funnel back to the US anyway - aids this, is beyond me.
A good point. A few weeks ago, I read Burns' Economic Aid and US Foreign Policy Toward Egypt. The book focuses on the Cold War - it was writte in the mid-1980s - but the parallels are striking. The upshot is that US policymakers have consistently overestimated the leverage that foreign aid gave them. Mubarak certainly will not go quietly into the night simply over USAID.
As you say, while threats to withhold military aid also have limitations, military aid remains a much more effective lever. Despite all the Soviet problems with the Egyptian relationship, the USSR had more luck influencing Egyptian policy with military aid than the US did with economic aid.
In addition to your valid criticisms, the editorial was riddled with factual errors about 1) the number of protests Kifaya has had, 2) the numbers of those in attendance at the individual protests (which was misleading to show an incremental increase like it is a building movement) and 3) offered an unstated but implied representative link between Ayman Nor and Kifaya (to my knowledge there is not one).
Indeed, the Kifaya organizers are a bit pissed Ayman is getting all this attention while they are harrassed and some many other political prisoners go unmentioned by organs such as the WaPo.
It also is ironic to notice the difference between the Lebanese protests who copied the Kifaya slogan, which Bush is out in force to support against Syria and the Egyptian protesters in Kifaya that the US administration is yet to mention, much less support.
The contradictions are fantastically in the open and without commentary in the Western Press.
The line about spitting in Bush's face is wildly hyperbolic. It's consistent with the Post's overall attitude of treating foreign leaders that cross the US as unruly children though. But seriously, they're acting as if pushing Egypt toward democratising is the central focus of Bush's foreign policy, rather than just rhetorical crap for the domestic audience. There's a hundred things he could do that would be more likely to change Mubarak's policy, even just a little, and Bush isn't interested in doing any of them.
Further to the point about Mubarak and US military AID. If Mubarak is subjected to pressure in order to reform, he will not hesitate in rejecting US AID. Ironically, this will raise Mubarak's stature in Egypt, not lower it, and that will give him all the justification he needs to silence the demands of internal opposition to his regime. What a mess!
Victory In Egypt?
I haven't posted anything about my pet subject this week, Egypt.
It turns out I've missed a lot. The big news from Issandr E