A fascinating study in modern-day colonialism

I read with increasing distaste the outpourings of the esteemed Mr. Kristof of the New York Times. He has travelled all the way to Egypt, because he scorns anyone who dares hold an opinion on a subject without physically being within a radius of (say) 3 km from the epicentre of the, er, subject. ("I also deeply believe in opinions grounded in on-the-ground reporting not just in armchair pontificating." --Mr. Kristof on his Facebook site, 05 Feb 2011) Of course, by this logic, someone who is 71 years old must have a better insight into the first world war than someone who is only 65. And someone who has never been to South Korea cannot possibly know as much about the IMF/Korean crisis of 1997 as a journalist who took a champagne-class flight to Seoul and actually spent three whole weeks in a hotel, walking and talking with the common folk, the bureaucracy and even a couple of old ladies.

Now, the latest from Mr. Kristof is a piece on Mr. Mubarak's much awaited speech where he reiterates a commitment to hand over power to the winner of free and transparent elections in September (http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/the-pharaoh-refuses-to-go/).

The title itself is not a little tacky: "The Pharaoh Refuses To Go".

The Pharaoh? I can conceive of a segment of the population who think of Egypt as a quaint old land, where they haggle over the prices of carpets, where camels are traded during weddings, where it is considered unacceptable for women to have opinions and whose economy is based on tourists giving the natives baksheesh when shown around the pyramids. But surely, journalists who work at the New York Times have access to Wikipedia and probably a university education behind them?

Compare this to the Civilized World, i.e., the West. Would the obstinacy or, if one is for the President, steadfastness, of Mr. Obama on a given issue be referred to as Chief Conquering Bear digging his heels in? (Reference to Native American history, exactly as the Pharaoh is a reference to Egyptian history) Another cheap trick is to refer to Mr. Putin as a Tsar (97,100 hits on Google, as compared to 507,000 for Mubarak Pharaoh). It recalls to mind a backward Russia, say of the 19th century, and is soothing for lots of people who feel most comfortable with accounts of foreign cultures being inferior and, for good measure, godless. Pandering to the mob is often advantageous.

A form of the ad hominem attack, then, projecting the negative associations of a modern-day pharoah onto Mr. Mubarak.

> This is of course manifestly unacceptable to the Egyptian people.

Rather fetching, how Mr. Kristof feels incumbent upon himself to speak for the Egyptian people. Or does he mean the people with whom he's had an extended conversation on the current political state in Egypt? This must necessarily be a fraction of the masses of people in Tahrir Square in Cairo, which location Mr. Kristof and camera-crew grace with their presence. That, in turn, must be a fraction of the people of Egypt. The claim is manifestly incredible.

> An Arab friend of mine who has met Mubarak many, many times
> describes him as “a stubborn old man,"....

Mr. Kristof has a friend who is an Arab - this open-to-different-cultures thing must be catching on, then. Wonder if this particular friendship predates the current Egyptian crisis. Wonder if the Arab is a non-Egyptian. If a non-Egyptian, then it is akin to referring to "my Catholic White Friend" when discussing a situation in Spain, even if said CWF is from Dublin. And if an Egyptian, then interesting that his (or her) ethnicity should be insisted upon, given that the events unfolding in Egypt are primarily of a political nature.

Someone who has met Mr. Mubarak "many, many times"? Now, Mr. Kristof did not use quote marks, so the "many, many" bit is not a direct quote. And if a direct quote, the one expects an insightful journalist to post the subtle follow-up question, "Er, how many, then? Thrice, eight, eighteen times, every three months for eight years?". Especially questionable as the Arabs do have a system of numbering superior to the stereotypical troll system of "one, two, many".

Again, an ad hominem attack - a stubborn old man, a man who is ga-ga, closed to new ideas, bitter and twisted, desperately hanging on to power because it is the only aphrodisiac.

> Suleiman just spoke as well, praising Mubarak
> and asking the youth of Egypt to go home and
> stop watching satellite television. Only possible
> conclusion: he’s delusional, too.

Mr. Kristof states - with an air of utter conviction - that the President and Vice President of Egypt are both delusional. Where from comes this arrogance? Did he date *all* the girls in his high-school class? Does his gardener back in the US hold a PhD from Moscow University? Do President Obama and the Pope have him on their speed-dials? The ancient Sanskrit proverb, "Vidhya dadati Vinayam" suggests that with wisdom comes humility, so it can't be that.

> It was interesting that Mubarak tried to push
> the nationalism button and blame outside forces
> (meaning the United States) for trying to push him out.

The phrase "Push the nationalism button" appears to suggest that our writer is contemptuous of classical patriotism, as befits a thinker of our age. Yet, the writer, in previous posts has glorified
those ready to die for their country. A little opportunistic, then.

And the extrapolation from "outside forces" to "the United States" suggests that Mr. Kristof's Arab friend is Mr. Mubarak's speech writer. He had probably written "outside forces, i.e. the United States", but Mr. Mubarak didn't know what "i.e." meant, and just skipped that bit.

Long live liberty. And the respectful handling of our ideological opponents.

Pity the truth

Let us stand up for liberty, and firmly deal with brutality, that all the children of the earth may celebrate the seasons in their own proud fashions.

But the ends do not justify the means, do they? So let us not sully the truth in this fashion nor engage in artifices of cheap propaganda.

Mr. Kristof, the influential New York Times reporter posted today on his Facebook page:

"Some people don't understand why Egyptian demonstrators remain so determined to keep on protesting. Take a look at this video, apparently showing the police shooting a lone, unarmed demonstrator in cold blood. That's the kind of brutality that the protesters want uprooted from their state, and I think they have a point. Don't you?"

Let us dissect the journalist’s message here: “….apparently showing the police…..”.

Apparently? So it is not confirmed? But then, if it’s not confirmed, then surely, one may not use it to talk about the brutality of the regime?

But that is precisely what our journalist does.

“This may not be true, but if it is, it’s pretty awful. Things that are awful are, well, awful, and we really can’t tolerate them. Long live the demonstrators”

All this without clicking on the link for the video.

Let us do that now (http://www.casavaria.com/cafesentido/2011/02/07/7525/video-egypt-police-shoot-unarmed-demonstrator-in-cold-blood/).

The text reads:

“A video from Alexandria reportedly shows Mubarak’s police force shoot an unarmed pro-democracy demonstrator in cold blood.”

Again, the key word is “reportedly”, used early on, and then quietly ignored.

“Mubarak’s police force”? A force directly under the control of Mr. Mubarak? Or is it because Mr. Mubarak is the President of Egypt and must therefore take responsibility for all actions (and inactions) of the police forces in all the towns of Egypt? If that’s the case, then it’s also Mubarak’s army which is not shooting at the protestors? And Mubarak’s hospitals which are treated the wounded?

“Pro-democracy”? How does anyone know that, on the basis of given information? Maybe it’s someone who’s kid brother was molested by a police officer. Maybe it’s someone who has had a couple of bottles of whisky (or distilled coconut juice) and has his nerves turned into those of the Nemean lion. Maybe it’s someone who can’t stand Mr. Mubarak. Maybe it’s someone who has been brought up in a public school imagining that it is noble and glorious to die for the fatherland. Maybe it’s someone who has been threatened with violence to his lover, in case of non-compliance. Maybe it’s someone who has no prospects, but finds the notion of the cameras of the community pointed at him as he walks forward, with the chants of the crowd behind him, to be a rather engaging one.

Anyone who has attended a football match in a football loving land knows what the screams of the mob can mean, to what they can lead.

Unarmed demonstrator? How does anyone know that, on the basis of given information? Did the young man just walk through an international airport? What does “armed” mean? Having a rifle or a pistol or, at any rate, a largish, very visible, sinister-looking knife? What about all those suicide bombers who strap things to their waists, or to their ankles? Things which go “boom”? If an Afghan-looking man walks up to a US military post in Afghanistan, with lots of people standing behind him, cheering him on, with obvious anger towards the regime to which the military openly owe allegiance, there is a good chance that the man will be shot, if he does not stop his advance towards the post, perhaps after a warning shot.

“Cold blood”? This term is also used by Mr. Kristof. How is this cold blood? In the video can be heard a lot of confused shouting and be seen a burning tire. All this in a context of violence and hatred over the past weeks, much of it directed against state actors. At what point would the policeman have fired and the shot not considered being in “cold blood”? When the lone man walks up to them within suicide bomber range? Knifing range? Throttling range?

“The video clearly shows the man shot by the police, without any violent provocation whatsoever.”

Note, of course, that the video does NOT “clearly” show police, or even people dressed up in some sort of uniform, shooting anyone. It shows people with guns, it shows a man lying on the concrete, probably shot, but not who did the shooting.

“Rights groups and anti-government activists are saying the video is now clear evidence for all the world to see that the Mubarak regime has held onto power by the use of lethal violence and totalitarian measures.”

Which rights groups, which anti-government activists? And what of us who do not see this as “clear evidence” for the 30 years of Mubarak’s regime having being one steeped in lethal violence? Are we to have the mob march against us?

“Tonight The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof reported to CNN that watchdog groups have talled at least 297 deaths so far resulting from the regime’s violent crackdown on unarmed demonstrators”

So Mr. Kristof of the NYT told CNN (so he’s working for the NYT and CNN? Are they not competitors? Or do they have shared financial interests? Does not say much for an independent media, unfortunately) that certain watchdog groups (unnamed here, for reasons……for reasons not stated here) have etc.etc..

Talled? What does that mean? Noted, maybe, from the context?

297 deaths from violent crackdown on unarmed demonstrators? So, in each case, they checked that the deaths were caused by the regime and that the demonstrators were unarmed? Somehow, this sort of rigorous data analysis is not something one associates with “Mr K told CNN that some unnamed groups said that…”.

And the fact that Mr. Kristof links to a page which in turn refers to Mr. Kristof suggests that the independent-lines-of-evidence paradigm is not in play here.

Freedom for all?


A stirring article titled "We are all Egyptians" by Mr. Kristof in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/opinion/04kristof.html?_r=1) brooks closer examination. It is ostensibly about liberty, dear to all of us, but some points appear to go in the opposite direction.

> It turned out that Amr had lost his legs many
> years ago in a train accident, but he rolled his
> wheelchair into Tahrir Square to show support
> for democracy, hurling rocks back at the mobs
> that President Hosni Mubarak apparently sent to
> besiege the square.

Overcoming adversity is praiseworthy.

Hurling of rocks not so praiseworthy.

For democracy is generally good, but how, precisely, is this "for democracy"?

One assumes that by democracy, one refers to a liberal democracy, with certain fundamental rights, uniform civil law, accountability etc.

But how can we certain that Amr and the rest of the mass of people in Tahrir Square and Alexandria desire this sort of state? Is it not more a case of anger *against* something - against Mr. Mubarak, against his regime, against the last three decades - that now seeks a victim. It seeks to destroy (which may be a very good thing; valid social theory, anyway) but not necessarily to *build* liberal-democratic institutions (this is what we hope for, right?).

Or is democracy in this context just the rule of the mob?

Is the world media cheering them on merely because it's happening oh so far away anyway, and we really need something exciting. No bunch of terrorists have been blowing things up, recently,
have they now?. Except in Iraq and Pakistan but that's not *news*.

Note that the official (royal!) statement from Saudi Arabia is quite different.

"No Arab or Muslim can tolerate any meddling in the security and stability of Arab and Muslim Egypt by those who infiltrated the people in the name of freedom of expression, exploiting it to inject their destructive hatred."

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12316019)


The Israelis aren't too keen on change either, with the possible rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, a suspension of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty and the loss of the only Arab ally Israel had in the region, no more holidaying in Sinai etc..

> As I arrived near the square in the morning, I
> encountered a line of Mr. Mubarak’s goons
> carrying wooden clubs with nails embedded in them.

Well, this begs the question. How did Mr. Kristof know that the goons were the goons of Mubarak? Because he recognized them from former goon parties? Because he asked them for identification?

But the description does conjure up quite a picture - wooden clubs with nails. Sort of confirms the stereotype of a really backward country, for those who have such stereotypes about foreign places, especially in The Middle East.


> “If I die,” he added, “this is for my country.”

Oh, the old sweet-and-honourable-it-is. But that passed out of fashion during the wars of the first half of the twentieth century, did it not? The old lie, our soldier of WW1 called it. But no, here it is, resurrected, ready to claim more lives, made glorious again by no less than the New York Times.

What next?

Dying for the Word of God?

Believing in these outdated concepts is a sign of intellectual and cultural underdevelopment.
Propagating these concepts, whilst remaining safely outside the social situation, is despicable.

> There’s a small jail in Tahrir Square
> for pro-Mubarak thugs who are captured,
> and their I.D. cards indicate that many
> are working for the police or the ruling party.

Jail? Thugs? Captured? What is the nature of this jail? Is it part of a system that involves
prisoners being charged, informed about rights, not being tortured, being brought up before a
member of the judiciary, access to counsel, a fair trial etc. etc.?

Because, if it doesn't, then it's just a room with walls made of concrete where people unfortunate
enough to be in the wrong place have been brought in by the mob and will probably be attacked and murdered, if the violence in the square is anything to go by.

How do we know that they are thugs? How do we know the manner of their capture and whether it wasn't staged? The picture in the article titled "Weapons and ids taken from policemen in plain clothes" would have made Kafka proud. It displays unreadable ID cards, with a piece of paper lying next to them. On this piece of paper is written, in block letters, "These weapons and IDs were taken from police, in plain clothes, attacking protesters".

> The lion-hearted Egyptians I met on
> Tahrir Square are risking their lives to
> stand up for democracy and liberty, and
> they deserve our strongest support —and
> frankly, they should inspire us as well.

Standing up for democracy and liberty is commendable.

But here's the rub - are we sure they are standing up for liberty?

Is this liberty as it is understood in the West? Personal freedom, freedom of religion (even to be a jew or an adherent of a non-Abrahamic religion), freedom of expression (even to hold that God does not exist) etc. etc.?

Or is a limited version good enough? Say, the freedoms of Saudi Arabia?

> Innaharda, ehna kullina Misryeen!
> Today, we are all Egyptians!

This is beautiful and touching. And superbly colonial.