Al Jazeera reports that Egypt has rejected any external intervention in the affair of the arrest of Ayman Nour, emphasizing that it would not permit any interference in its judicial affairs. It quotes Sulayman Awad, Mubarak's spokesman, as saying that "we forcefully reject any intervention in a subject currently before the court" and denying that the affair had any political dimension. (The story isn't on the English al Jazeera site; here's a link to a Reuters story with the basics).
Meanwhile, on cue, Marsi Attallah, a regular columnist in the semi-official daily al Ahram, lays into the United States for its arrogant and unilateralist foreign policy. He argues that American power is so great that it is able to impose its policies everywhere in the world, and that the US enjoys absolute hegemony. And that this absolute power is in the hands of the most right wing and most pro-Israeli and most widely hated administration in history, and so on... you can guess the rest, it's all pretty predictable.
America's move.
You are entirely right that this was the predictable move by the Egyptian government re Ayman. I am thinking of posting something on this but quickly....
When Jackson Deihl wrote his editoral on 14 Feb that with Nor's arrest, Mubarak laid down a challenge to Bush & co., I thought he hit the nail on the head. Then thinking about it more - The Ayman Nor cases differs so much from Saad al-Din Ibrahim's and this is playing out in a potentially more complex way.
Saad's case was really personal and dealt with the issue of "did Saad defame Egypt's rep abroad?" To me this was always open to interpretation. It also provided a backdoor the regime could slide out of at the ordeal's conclusion.
The thing with Nor is the Egyptian authorities framed this differently. They explicitly framed it in legal terms that have to be played out with the evidence. Whether this was done intentionally because of the Saad experience is speculative but they may have constrained themselves more than they originally thought.
Nor's case places restrictions on the Egyptian regime because they have tried not to make this a political case. Hence, the criminal charges are "did he or didn't he forge the party docs?" To the outside eye, this is not even important. We know its a setup. Yet, because this is going to have to play out in court with documents that will require being read (as opposed to Saad's case), it has to play out more straightforwardly. In this way, the regime does not have the manueverability it did in Saad's case. At the conslusion of Ayman's case, either he did it or he did not. Now, if he didn't do it, the regime loses. If Ayman is convicted, then the regime wins short-term, but the longer-term consequences are rougher internationally and between the state and its opposition forces.
So while Diehl was right about this Mubarak-Bush power struggle over reform, it is also now a matter of the regime's legitimacy not to make this look trumpted up versus Nor. The backlash will just increase Nor's popularity and case (and indirectly the opposition calls for political reform, which to my mind don't necessarily match up at this time).
Rereading this comment, it feels sloppy. Sorry about that. But I am just trying to clarify something. Perhaps further commentary will clean up my thinking.
Posted by: Josh Stacher | February 18, 2005 at 11:51 AM
Josh, according to EOHR:
"The case began on the 29th January when Nour was arrested after his parliamentary immunity was lifted on the basis of a report by the anti forgery and falsification unit of the Public Funds Investigations office.
Parliament took the decision to lift Nour's immunity by a majority vote.
According to Nour, before this vote took place his office and home had been searched, which raises strong doubts about the legitimacy of the procedures taken."
http://www.eohr.org/press/2005/pr0131.htm
Posted by: praktike | February 18, 2005 at 10:42 PM
Praktike,
I guess I am not making myself clear - What I am saying is that in the case of Saad, the charges were largely based on interpretative claims. With Ayman, they situated the case in a "he did it or did not" basis. This does not give the regime much room to move around.
Of course there was poor investigation and procedural protocol was not followed, but the case seems different from its famous predecessor. I guess the point you raise about not following procedure could get the regime off the hook and is valid. Either way, I think the government is digging itself a big hole domestically. I think most of the focus has been to date about the hole they are digging in relationship with the US. But the constraints are working in several directions now.
Perhaps I am reaching a bit too far with my previous analysis. At any rate, for what this is worth (and I am guessing not much) Ayman's case feels a lot different than Saad's despite both being political cases.
Posted by: Josh Stacher | February 19, 2005 at 02:52 AM
Incidentally, and vaguely on-topic, people in Lebanon are now waving "kafa!" signs.
Posted by: Tom Scudder | February 19, 2005 at 04:14 AM
But Josh, though as you say, Noor's case is not as "interprative" as Saad's (where the law is unclear on what is dafamatory of Egypt), I think that Saad's case had a "criminal" aspect as well, accusing him of forging research in order to acquire money from the EU.
In the case of Noor, as you say it is more of "he did it or not", which could be less loose than in Saad's case. But still, I think the regime will achieve their goal. Which I think in both cases (Saad and Noor), is to drag them in court as long as possible, have them spend some jail time, have the press smear their reputation, getting them out of the ball game, and teaching them a lesson basically. So if they're convicted, well and good, if not, by the time they are acquitted, the objective will have been achieved for them. Making anyone thinking of doing something similar think twice. I think this tactic proved to be a failure on the long run with Saad, but then, what else can they do if he broke his deal with them?!
I think it is common belief here that before the regime makes any deal with anyone and allows them some extra power, they make sure to have their cards against them before hand to lay them out whenever needed.
Posted by: Mohamed | February 19, 2005 at 02:21 PM
Mohamed, do you think that the United States publicly standing up for Nour will hurt his cause?
Posted by: praktike | February 19, 2005 at 05:38 PM
Even with Saad's case, I think that at the end of the day, the support he got from the US didn't actually hurt his cause/case? It might've helped the government's smear campain against him, but if it wasn't for the US, I think he could've been jailed for much longer.
Alot of people didn't like what Saad Ibrahim was doing long before he was arrested, so being supported by the Americans (especially the way they did it) added flame to the fire. With Noor, I think its different because he's not that controversial as Saad. Saad was being portrayed as a defamatory, inflammatory, non-patriotic, and pro-Israeli. Noor doesn't seem to have that controversial a background, and forging 1000 un-necessary signatures (even if true) is not like "selling out the country".
So, personally, I think the US support to him can't hurt that much, but would probably ensure him eventual acquittal. Equally (or more) important I think is what will happen to his party?
Posted by: Mohamed | February 19, 2005 at 06:31 PM