PRI's The World » Carol Zall

Egypt’s Military Council Tries to Hold on to Power

Carol Zall — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 13:50:22 +0000

Egypt’s ruling military council – the Supreme Council of Armed Forces – issued a declaration Sunday giving itself sweeping new powers, including legislative powers and budgetary control.

Marco Werman talks with the Council on Foreign Relations’ Steven Cook to find out where these developments leave Egypt’s revolution.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: Critics of the Egyptian military have used the word “coup” to describe how generals have grabbed extra powers in recent days. Steven Cook says that’s debatable. Cook is a Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Steven Cook: The dissolution of parliament is certainly a power that the Supreme Council does not have, although they were clearly working off of the decision of Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court, which had declared the election of a third seat in the parliament null and void. The military then followed on with a constitutional decree giving itself a whole range of new powers. So in that sense it certainly looks a lot like a coup, but I think in contrast what the military is trying to do is to exit politics in as safe a manner as it possibly can from their own perspective. This was a hedge against the presidency of Mohamed Mursi and the SCAF, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces wants to leave politics with its economic interests in tact and with its exalted status in the Egyptian political system in tact. They weren’t sure that they would get that from Mursi after trying to negotiate this with some political force and as a result they’ve issued this decree.

Werman: Right, so now the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces say they’ll hand over power to the newly elected president, which does appear to be Mohamed Mursi of the Muslim Brotherhood, but after yesterday’s declaration how much power is left to hand to a new president?

Cook: Well, that’s exactly right. The military was clearly saying that it will not subordinate itself to the new president, a civilian and certainly if Mursi does turn out to be the winner, certainly the Muslim Brotherhood, which the military has been at odds with for the better part of the last 60 years. The decree says that the president cannot declare war without the approval of Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces retains the right to make its own decisions about Egypt’s Security and Defense Policy, so they really have done what they could to gut the president of a variety of powers that are related directly to the military. And this way they insulate themselves from whatever a civilian might try to do to the presidency and retain power and influence for themselves in the political system.

Werman: And retaining that power and dissolving Egypt’s parliament yesterday, I mean is there any legal basis for these actions?

Cook: There’s none, although that obviously hasn’t prevented them from doing it. There is a long history of militaries in the Middle East, not just in Egypt, going beyond their constitutional legal writ to get precisely what they want. They’ve now said that they will rerun elections in the early fall. They are clearly pointing to the Supreme Constitutional Court’s decision nullifying a third of the seats and, in fact, the Chairman of the Supreme Constitutional Court said without those seats the parliament couldn’t possibly function. So that’s the basis, but the Constitutional declaration that the military itself issued in March 2011 says nothing about their ability to dissolve parliament and at best it says it can adjourn the parliament.

Werman: I mean this has gotta be a somber development for the revolutionaries who were out there in Tahrir Square last year and removed Mubarak from power, essentially.

Cook: I think it absolutely is. It seems that the revolutionary promise of Tahrir Square is slipping away. This is not what anyone imagined during the heady days of the uprising. There were great hopes for a more democratic Egypt. Everybody, including the revolutionaries made a lot of mistakes during the last 16 months and we are back at this familiar dynamic pinning the forces of the old regime or the military against the Muslim Brotherhood. Those aren’t the only two relevant political forces in the political arena, but clearly, the strongest.

Werman: Steven Cook, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Thank you very much.

Cook: My pleasure.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Why Guar Beans Matter

Carol Zall — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:20:04 +0000

Guar beans were in the news this week.

The Halliburton Company said its profits dropped recently because of a shortage of the legume, which is mostly grown in India.

Guar beans are turned into guar gum, which is used in Halliburton’s hydraulic fracturing operations. Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is the controversial method used to drill for deep natural gas deposits.

The guar news left us wondering about what exactly guar beans and guar gum are.

We spoke with Patrick Di Justo, who writes the monthly “What’s Inside” column for Wired magazine. He said that guar gum is used in food as a thickening agent, very much like corn starch, but that it also has other, non-food uses. “It can be used as a lubricant in drilling,” he said, “because while it’s used as a thickener in ice cream, guar gum is less thick than mud. So as they drill through rock and mud, guar gum being less thick, actually works as a lubricant.”

We also spoke with David Biello, Associate Editor for Environment & Energy at Scientific American magazine, about how something as small as a guar bean can have a large impact on a big industrial process such as hydraulic fracking.

Lisa Mullins: Now, another story that caught our eye this week involves beans – guar beans to be precise. You might not be familiar with them, but Halliburton is. The company says its profits dropped recently because of a lack of guar beans. It turns out the guar gum is used in Halliburton’s hydraulic fracturing operations, you know, fracking, the controversial method used to drill for deep natural gas deposits. As for what guar gum is exactly, we asked Patrick Di Justo, who writes the monthly “What’s Inside” column for Wired magazine.

Patrick Di Justo: Guar gum is used in food as a thickening agent because it’s very much like corn starch. It can be used as a lubricant in drilling because, while it’s used as a thickener in ice cream, guar gum is less thick than mud. So as they drill through rock and mud, guar gum being less thick, actually works as a lubricant.

Mullins: Well, we asked David Biello to chime in. He is the Associate Editor for Environment & Energy at Scientific American magazine, and we asked him to start off telling us everything he knows about guar beans in thirty seconds or less.

David Biello: Wow, that’s quite a test. Well, the guar bean is an agriculturist crop primarily grown in India. The name actually means “cow food” and that’s what they used to use it for in India, but now it is primarily grown to produce guar gum which is used as a thickener in foods and has a variety of other industrial applications.

Mullins: So it’s pretty amazing that the price of a little guar bean can have such a large impact on an enormous industrial process or the profit margin of a major company such as Halliburton. It seems counter-intuitive, but how does that happen?

Biello: That is surprising and actually that suggests that guar gum is becoming quite the desirable commodity and that we will soon see it growing in places other than India. How it can have such an outsized impact on fracking is because fracking, as you know, is done primarily with water and that’s the main ingredient in their kind of “special sauces” for breaking up the rock down there to get the natural gas out. But in addition to the water there’s sand, petrochemicals, and then there’s guar gum. Obviously, the water and sand are cheap or free and the petrochemicals are relatively inexpensive. That makes guar gum potentially one of the more expensive bits in the special sauce and thus it can start to have this outsized impact. That said, these special sauces tend to vary from company to company, so it’s likely that we would see some replacements for guar gum in the not-too-distant future.

Mullins: So about if we look at this in the other direction? How do these big processes affect the production and the availability of the very substance they rely on? For instance, are the guar beans, well, is it likely that they’ll become scarce or that more people might start growing them to feed the demand?

Biello: Yeah. Absolutely. They have already become scarce. And this show how something like the weather can have knock-on effects kind of a halfway around the world, and this is the era of globalization. These kinds of supply chain issues are more and more common. It’s particularly true with agricultural products. I think probably the most common example is with corn and ethanol that’s been used to kind of cut down on our oil imports, but turning all that corn into ethanol has had knock-on effects on everything from cattle feed to food prices around the world and then those food prices, those high food prices, tend to make people upset.

Mullins: So does what’s happening right now with a little guar bean create opportunity or present a huge problem, as it seems to be right now, at least for Halliburton?

Biello: It’s both. That’s probably not a very satisfying answer. It’s a problem in that for the moment there’s not enough guar gum to go around and so they’re going to, you know, the prices will probably continue to rise in the short term. In the long term, that means farmers will plant more guar beans, we’ll probably start growing it in the United States a little bit more, and Halliburton will also work on ways to kind of minimize let’s say it’s exposure to this tiny bean from India.

Mullins: David Biello, Associate Editor for Environment & Energy at Scientific American. Thanks for being in the program and explaining all about the guar bean. Thank you.

Biello: Thank you.

Mullins: This is PRI – Public Radio International.

Drachmas or Euros: What’s at Stake in Greek Vote

Carol Zall — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:50:59 +0000

All eyes are once again on Greece, as it prepares for yet another election on Sunday.

At stake is whether Greece will reject austerity measures, or continue with the deep spending cuts the previous government agreed to in exchange for bailout funds.

Anchor Lisa Mullins talks with Justin Fox, Editorial Director for the Harvard Business Review Group, about whether the vote could spell the end of the Euro in Greece, and what impact the outcome of the election might have on the Eurozone countries and the global economy.

Reinventing the Role of First Lady in France

Carol Zall — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:50:38 +0000

When Francois Hollande was elected as France’s new President on May 6, the world turned its attention to him, and to France’s new first lady, Valérie Trierweiler.

Hollande’s election has brought a number of firsts for France. For one thing, she and Hollande, who’ve been together publicly since 2007, are not married. And Trierweiler, who’s a journalist, says she has her own career, and plans to continue working.

Although she’s covered politics for a long time, her bosses at the weekly magazine Paris Match say Trierweiler will now cover arts and culture instead of politics in order to avoid any conflicts of interest.

Yesterday, Trierweiler published her first article since Hollande became president. It was a review of a book about Eleanor Roosevelt, who herself wrote a column about her day-to-day life when she was first lady of the United States.

Marco Werman talks with New York Times correspondent Elaine Sciolino about France’s new first lady. Sciolino is based in Paris, and is the author of “La Seduction: How the French Play the Game of Life.”

Marco Werman: One world figure who actually is on Twitter is the new First Lady of France, Valérie Trierweiler. Her account has more than 70,000 followers. Trierweiler isn’t your typical First Lady. For one thing she and President Francois Hollande are not married. Also, Trierweiler is a journalist who plans to continue her own career. She’d had cover politics for a long a time but her bosses at the weekly magazine “Paris Match” say she’ll now cover arts and culture instead to avoid conflicts of interest. Her first article “On a new beat,” is a review of a book about Eleanor Roosevelt who herself wrote a newspaper column while she was First Lady. “Will you look at that,” Trierwieler writes in her review, “a First Lady who is also a journalist isn’t a novelty.” New York Times correspondent Elaine Sciolino is based in Paris. She says Trierweiler has come in for criticism about her choice to continue as a journalist.

Elaine Sciolino: There is a perceived conflict of interest because even if she writes about culture and the arts, she can be perceived to use her influence to change the President’s mind. There is a Ministry of Culture in France. We do not have such a ministry in the United States. And she is a journalist who has been a journalist working for 22 years. She says she has to earn a living because she’s supporting her three teenage sons, and that is admirable. But how to reconcile that with earning her living as a journalist is going to be extremely difficult.

Werman: Now there are also other aspects of the relationship between Trierwieler and Hollande that are less unconventional. They’re not married for one thing. We alluded to that earlier. Does being domestic partners rather than Mr. and Ms. work for a French First couple?

Sciolino: There’s not really a problem in France because the French really don’t care very much about private morality. I find it very interesting that nobody during the entire French presidential campaign asked Francois Hollande, “Do you believe in the institution of marriage?” He was the partner of Segoline Royal who ran for president in 2007, and he’s the father of their four children. They were never married. He is not married to Valerie Trierwieler either. And it could pose problems, if not inside France, is it going to pose problems when they go to the Vatican or they go to Saudi Arabia or they go to Egypt or even I wasn’t arguing, but if they go to Blair House in Washington DC?

Werman: Now what about the kind of public morality, because the previous French president Nicholas Sarkozy and his wife Carla Bruni embraced celebrity. They were associated with bling. And the French public kind of found that distasteful. With Trierwieler being a reporter for Paris Match is France kind of getting a continuation of a celebritized Presidential Office?

Sciolino: France is not getting a continuation of the celebritized presidency because Hollande and Trierwieler are very, very different from Sarkozy and Carla Bruni. They live very modestly. Right now they live in a 2-bedroom $4,000/month rental in un-chic part of Paris. She likes to ride her bike. He has been dubbed “Mr. Normal” because he promised to be a normal president. And he wants to take trains instead of planes. So you’re going to see a different style. And what I find the most interesting is they’re trying to have it all. They’re trying to stay true their own values, that they don’t have to be married. They don’t have to live in the Elysee Palace. They don’t have to change their lifestyles. But once you become a head of state and a head of state of a very important country you have to change. It’s not normal to be the President of France. You have to embrace all sorts of protocol and pump and state dinners. And that requires growing up to a certain extent. [laughs]

Werman: Elaine Sciolino is a Paris-based correspondent for the New York Times. Her most recent book is “La Seduction: How the French Play the Game of Life.” Elaine, thank you very much.

Sciolino: Thank you Marco.

Sugar In The Blood: Andrea Stuart’s Barbadian Legacy

Carol Zall — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:50:50 +0000

As Andrea Stuart writes in the current issue of Granta magazine, her Barbadian heritage is a complicated one. Stuart was born and raised on the Caribbean island, but in 1976, when she was a teenager, her family moved to England. She says her new home wasn’t especially welcoming to newcomers from the Caribbean — even well-educated, affluent ones like the Stuarts.

In a sense, the Stuarts weren’t newcomers at all. More than three centuries earlier, some of her ancestors had made the reverse journey, travelling from England to settle in Barbados. Over time, those British ancestors mixed with Stuart’s other forebears — Africans who were forcibly taken to Barbados to work as slaves in the island’s lucrative sugar trade.

Stuart writes about her family’s history in Barbados, beginning with her earliest known ancestor, George Ashby, who made the journey to the New World from England in the 1630s. She talks with Marco Werman about the complexities of untangling her family tree, and of coming to terms with the idea of being descended from both slave owners and slaves.

Stuart’s Granta article is excerpted from her book, Sugar in the Blood, which will be published in the United States next January.

Marco Werman: Here’s another writer in their own words. Andrea Stuart was born in Barbados. In 1976, when she was a teenager, her family moved to England. She says her new home wasn’t especially welcoming to newcomers from the Caribbean, even well-educated, affluent ones like the Stuarts. Although, in a sense, the Stuarts weren’t newcomers at all. Three and a half centuries earlier, some of her ancestors had gone from England to settle in Barbados. Over time, British ancestors mixed with Stuart’s other forebears – Africans who were forcibly taken to Barbados to work as slaves in the island’s lucrative sugar trade. Stuart writes about her family history in the current issue of Granta magazine. She begins with the story of her earliest known ancestor, George Ashby, who went to Barbados in the 1630s.

Andrea Stuart: I knew nothing about him. I didn’t even know he existed and I had no idea that I would be able to trace my family back that far. I first managed to get back to the eighteenth century and then, through luck and effort, we managed to go back to the seventeenth century. So there he was, this Englishman who moved, along with millions of other Englishmen, to the new world, and all the same time. Which is interesting because I think the American story of the American settlers has been much talked about in America and very much explored, while the British have kind of forgotten that settlers just didn’t go to mainland America. They went all the way up through South America, through the Caribbean, and up to Canada, and so there’s a wide stretch of people who have this story that I have . . .

Werman: Right.

Stuart: . . . of an Englishman or another European going over to make the new world and creating their families that are disparate racially, socially and so on.

Werman: Did you know in Barbados that you came from a mixed background – white and black?

Stuart: Yes, I did know that. I would say that that is probably the common denominator for many people.

Werman: What’s interesting in your case, Andrea, is that you’re the offspring of slave owners as well as those who were enslaved. I mean I guess that’s more . . .

Stuart: Yes.

Werman: . . . common than we realize, but has it been a tough one for you to reconcile? I mean you’ve found out about this recently, since doing this research.

Stuart: Yes, it’s been very interesting, realizing that you have, on the same plantation, both my slave owner ancestor and the slave from whom I’m evolved. It was an extraordinary sensation to feel that my planter forefather owned my other planter forefather and that they lived together through entire parts of their lives. So it’s an extraordinary kind of conundrum.

Werman: Right.

Stuart: I don’t know that I’ve really fully come to terms with that. How do you come to terms that your forefather owned your forefather? You know what I mean? It’s a very strange sensation because I have to be able to relate to both groups and understand how this extraordinary, dark scenario played out.

Werman: What a situation.

Stuart: Yeah, it is interesting.

Werman: Now, the main reason slaves were brought to Barbados was to work sugar plantations. Today, how prevalent is sugar in people’s lives in Barbados? Has it defined the fortunes, both great and nonexistent, of Barbadians, and even class?

Stuart: Well, I think traditionally sugar was the crop that made Barbados work as a colony because at the point where the colonists discovered sugar, they realized that they had finally found a crop that was lucrative. Before that, there was thought of abandoning it as a kind of failed experiment. And so sugar the island. Today, of course, sugar has been eclipsed by tourism and cane sugar has been eclipsed by the production of sugar beet in Europe, so it’s no longer the white gold, as it was described in the past. But I think when you go there you realize how much sugar kind of haunts the island and for the majority of inhabitants of the island who were slaves, I would say that they probably suffered a great deal for sugar. It was a bitter pill in many ways rather than a sweet one.

Werman: So with that personal baggage, the descendant both of slave owner and of slaves, coming from an island which furnished the sugar which enriched many British businessmen, your family moves to England in 1976. Many Brits, you write, considered you a foreigner. Did you find yourself getting defensive ever, having to tell people that, in fact, your British roots went back hundreds of years?

Stuart: Well, I think, at the time, I kind of bought the story that was prevalent in Britain which was that the AfriCaribbean, African colonial people in the country were sort of newcomers and that we were sort of there of sufferance and it was a sort of kind of act of kindness on the part of the British government. So there was that sense of feeling not quite worthy and not quite belonging. I think the wonderful thing about having written the book and explored this whole complex web of sugar slavery and settlement, I feel much more certain about my place in Britain because I can actually trace my English ancestors back much further than any Caucasian people can.

Werman: Right.

Stuart: And also because I realize how profoundly my slave ancestors suffered and worked in order to enrich the country that I now live in. So it has given me a much stronger, more solid base to live in this country and to negotiate it.

Werman: How is the history of slavery in the British Empire dealt with generally in England today?

Stuart: It’s interesting. I think that in Britain there’s still a degree of denial or an unwillingness to really confront the back story of British slavery and so on. So there’s a sense of it being something that happened sometime a long time ago in some far away place, rather than realizing that the British colonies were, at that point, Britain, that they were British territories and the connection between the colonies and Britain is incredibly intimate. Not something that happened far away and a long time ago, but something that happened in Britain in the world of British life and something that still has repercussion today, and I think that’s the thing that, as a culture, Britain hasn’t quite come to terms with.

Werman: Andrea, you write that in Britain your color enters the room before you do, but you also point out that it’s not color, but shade as well, shade of color . . .

Stuart: Yes.

Werman: . . . that is something that people in Britain, as well as Barbados, pay attention to. Talk about that and how for you that’s affected your life.

Stuart: Well, I think in the context of Britain, the shade issue is probably less of interest because in Britain one is either black or white and there’s very little sense of understanding about the shades and so on. That is more of an interest or discussion in the context of the Caribbean where people like me who are slightly lighter skinned, they’re clearly linked to a white ancestor and that therefore connects me to a past, rather tragically in fact, that is considered more privileged because what happened during slavery was the mixed race people had certain privileges associated with their white forebears and a lot of of that lingers in the Caribbean. So that sort of that thing matters there. And I think in Britain what happens is a different feeling which is that there’s an assumption in Britain about what all black people’s back story is, vis-Ã -vis class and social privilege and so on, and they assume a back story for me that has very little to do with my real experience.

Werman: Finally, as to Barbados, you say you visit home every year or so, but you put the word “home” in quote marks. What does Barbados mean to you now?

Stuart: I think my relationship to Barbados and the Caribbean generally is a sort of a curious love affair. I have a very sensual and very passionate attachment to the Caribbean, particularly Barbados, where where ever we’ve lived, we’ve always returned to this place where I have relatives and so on. It’s hard to think of it as home entirely because I haven’t lived there for a very long time and I am, to a very large degree, anglicized and I get teased by my cousins about my accents and the things that I say and do. So I know I’m aware of myself as a foreigner there, but it is also, simultaneously, the place that I feel most happy and at peace. So I suppose it’s the closest that I have come to as the place to call home. I just know that I am sort of, like so many people, displaced.

Werman: Andrea Stuart’s article “Sugar in the Blood” is in the current issue of Granta magazine. It’s an excerpt from her forthcoming book which will be out in January. She joined us from London. Andrea, thank you so much.

Stuart: Thank you, Marco. That was lovely.

Walking the Broomway

Carol Zall — Thu, 31 May 2012 12:40:07 +0000

For today’s Geo Quiz, we’re looking for an ancient path off the east coast of England.

The path starts at Great Wakering, on the coast of Essex, and it ends at Foulness – an island separated from the mainland by narrow creeks.

Here’s the interesting part: when the tide is in, this path is under water.

You can only walk it when the tide is out.

But if you time it right, it’s unforgettable.

The Broomway (Photo: David Quentin)

The answer is The Broomway.

British writer Robert Macfarlane walked The Broomway, and he writes about the experience in the current issue of Granta magazine.

Macfarlane says it was “the eeriest, the unearthliest and the most memorable walk” he’s ever taken.

Macfarlane’s Granta article is excerpted from his forthcoming book, The Old Ways.

Subscribe and follow:

Faroe Islands’ Teitur Lets the Dog Drive Home

Carol Zall — Wed, 30 May 2012 11:50:32 +0000

Located in the north Atlantic, roughly equidistant between Iceland, Scotland and Norway, the Faroe Islands have fewer than 50,000 inhabitants.

One of those inhabitants is musician Teitur Lassen, whose stage name is simply Teitur.

Teitur’s newest CD is called “Let the Dog Drive Home” – a collection of songs that he says is about just letting go.

“It’s kind of a quirky title I know,” he says, “but it just seemed to encapsulate what I wanted to say with this record, to make a collection of songs about letting things happen.”

Teitur’s laid-back sensibility may stem in part from the Faroese sense of time. He says that in a place where the sun never sets all summer, it’s easy to forget what time it is.

“I think that’s what the Faroe Islands really possess is time, you have abundance of time, and it’s such a luxury in this day and age – if you’re in big cities in the Western world or anywhere – you just seem to have so much time when you’re on the Faroes, which is a very good thing for creative people.”

That perspective on how people in “big cities” never have enough time is something Teitur knows about firsthand. He lived in Los Angeles for a while, working as a songwriter for a publisher. That experience inspired the song “You Never Leave L.A.,” which he says reflects the way that people say they hate Los Angeles, yet never seem to leave it:

“You realize there’s also deep history there of course, rooted in Hollywood, and entertainment, and there are all these people who are trying to make it. And there’s also a sadness about that. But I think it’s a very beautiful thing, so for me, I just wanted to sing about the good part about L.A., the very thing that takes people there.”

While much of his songwriting is in English, Teitur’s first language is Faroese. He says that Faroese is very different from English, calling it “an old Viking language”.

“The Faroes are an independent country in many ways,” he says, “we have our own language there and our own culture. So even though it belongs to Denmark it’s still very much an independent country, with our own government, our own systems and so on.”

As with many small language communities, says Teitur, there’s a struggle to invent new words to keep up with the modern world.

“I can remember when I was younger,” says Teitur, “there was a radio show with a guy called ‘the word guy’, and people would send requests like ‘How do I say computer?’ ”

Teitur does write songs in Faroese. In recent years he released a CD entirely in his native language. One of the songs on that CD is about the Faroese capital, Torshavn. It’s called “Havnin Er Ein Litil Bygd,” which means “Torshavn is a very small town”.

The song is an ode to both the freedoms and the constraints of living in a small place. “Torshavn is a little village,” sings Teitur. “My lighthouse in the middle of the sea.”

“It’s so confining here,” goes another verse, “but also so secure. I just want to forget that anything else exists”.

The words may be Faroese, but the small town could be anywhere – in the middle of a continent, or the middle of an ocean.

Subscribe and follow The World’s Global Hit

Egyptian Election: Split Vote Keeps Centrist Candidates from Advancing

Carol Zall — Mon, 28 May 2012 13:50:47 +0000

With no clear winner in the first round of Egypt’s presidential election, a run-off was formally announced on Monday.

The two candidates to advance to the second round will be the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Mursi, and former Mubarak regime member Ahmed Shafiq.

Host Marco Werman talks with reporter Ursula Lindsey in Cairo about the reaction of voters who favored more centrist candidates.

Marco Werman: In Egypt, a runoff presidential vote was formally announced today. Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Mursi will face Ahmed Shafiq. Shafiq is a military man. He served as the last prime minister under the old president Hosni Mubarak. Mursi and Shafiq got the most votes in last week’s first round election, but neither got a majority. Reporter Ursula Lindsey in Cairo says it’s a disappointing matchup for many Egyptians.

Ursula Lindsey: Almost half of the votes in the first round went not to the member of the Muslim Brotherhood or the member of the former regime who will be facing each other in the second round. They did go to candidates that people thought represented change. They went to an Islamist moderate candidate who was an opponent of the Mubarak regime. They went to a leftist candidate who was also a lifelong opposition activist and opponent of the regime. But the vote was split between them and others so they didn’t get what they needed to proceed to the second round.

Werman: So was this a tactical error then by moderates and the revolutionaries of the Arab Spring?

Lindsey: Well, there’s a lot of soul searching over this now and some regret, but you know, it was the first election of this kind and people voted for the candidates that inspired them. And it was also a very short campaign period. There was one month and the support for the candidates, the moment of the different candidates had changed very fast over time, so it was hard to predict what would happen.

Werman: How surprised are Egyptians by this stark result, Ursula, I mean the second round will pit a former Mubarak insider against a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Are people surprised?

Lindsey: I think people always suspected that the Muslim Brotherhood candidate would have a fairly strong showing. I mean the Muslim Brotherhood has a very strong organizational backbone and very committed supporters, and they shouldn’t be dismissed entirely. A lot of their members and supporters did in fact participate in the revolution even if their vision for Egypt after it may be quite different from that of secular revolutionaries. I think a lot of people are surprised and very upset at the strong showing of Ahmed Shafiq, the former general and head of the Aviation Authority and prime minister under Mubarak. He was Mubarak’s prime minister appointed during the uprising, then he you know, sort of resigned in disgrace. And I think this is a figure that people did not think they would see again on the national stage.

Werman: And the turnout in this first round, 46%, did that meet expectations? Was it higher or lower than the parliamentary vote earlier this year in Egypt?

Lindsey: It was lower than the parliamentary vote and it’s something that people have pointed to already, so not only will the two candidates who will make it to the second round have only gotten half of the vote between them, but it will be half of a pretty low turnout, especially when you, I mean this was a very historic election and the first time that the Egyptians could truly elect their president. The turnout low and the people point to this as a sign that confidence in the process and in the political transition was already low before this election took place.

Werman: I mean as polarizing as the results are, it should be said that half the voters did cast their votes for a centrist candidates. What now for those voters? Have you spoken to any of them and how are they feeling?

Lindsey: They’re disappointed and they’re facing a very tough choice because now they have to choose between the two extremes that are exactly what they were rejecting with their choices in the first round. And there’s a lot of people trying to figure out whether to boycott or whether even if they don’t like either candidate, there’s you know, one of the two that they really want to make sure doesn’t get in, and so it’s a very bitter choice for a lot of people, although I think they’re still struggling with it.

Werman: Reporter Ursula Lindsey in Cairo. Thanks very much for the update.

Lindsey: You’re welcome.

Mali Chaos Continues

Carol Zall — Fri, 25 May 2012 13:40:31 +0000

American journalist Peter Chilson has been in Mali, reporting on the crisis there.

He crossed the border from Mali into Burkina Faso to escape increasing violence.

The country has been in chaos since Mali’s president was deposed by a military coup in March.

The Tuareg minority has also mounted a rebellion and declared an independent state in the north of the country.

Anchor Marco Werman talks with Peter Chilson about what he saw and heard while in Mali about the continuing unrest and uncertainty there.

Marco Werman: Journalist Peter Chilson was in Mali until a few days ago. He was there reporting for Foreign Policy magazine and for the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, and he’s just followed the same route across the border to Burkina Faso as many of the Tuareg refugees we just heard about.

Peter Chilson: What I did find remarkable when I crossed the border was that when we came to the Malian border post, which I was expecting to find abandoned, there were two border guards there; young men who are not at all armed

Werman: Right, belonging to the Malian Army.

Chilson: Right, and they wanted me to know that they weren’t armed and that they were not pleased about it. They wanted me to know that they were quite frightened and that they really felt uneasy because they didn’t see that there was really a whole lot between them and the rebellion in the north. And then I and my driver, we kept on going.

Werman: Now, you had to leave Mali because you found yourself reporting in a town where there were no Malian government soldiers and there was a warning to you that bandits or maybe Islamists were coming the next day to attack that same town, and the prefect there warned you to get out of town.

Chilson: Right, the mayor said to me, “Look, it’s true, I get these warnings all the time, but this warning is very, very specific,” and he said to me, “If I were you, I would really keep a low profile if you want to stay in town.” And my thought was I did not want to be kidnapped at all, so I left as fast as I could.

Werman: I mean it really seems to show the level of chaos in Mali, no government soldiers in the part of the country allegedly under government control. One can only imagine what it’s like in the north where there are Tuareg rebels, where there are Islamists. Do you have a sense of just how chaotic it is up there?

Chilson: The Malian Army apparently lost according to the diplomatic sources I spoke to in Bamako when I was there, between 50-80% of its military material. You can really see that in the Mati region, which is where the army fell back and regrouped.

Werman: The Mati region is the central part of the country.

Chilson: And the Malian Army is now trying to reorganize itself. And in the north it is very, very confusing. It’s tough to tell who controls what.

Werman: If the situation in the north of Mali is murky, I mean it’s also kind of confusing what’s going on in Bamako, the capital. Who is in charge in Bamako?

Chilson: We’re really not quite sure who’s in charge. I spoke to the military commanders in Mati and they are operating completely independent of Bamako. They’re not waiting for orders. And the captain, Captain Sanogo, who lead the coup on March 21st and who is now apparently the president of Mali

Werman: Apparently, we don’t even know.

Chilson: Right, they’re not taking orders from him. They are acting on their own and they made it clear to me that they are going to reinvade the north, and it’s obvious they don’t have any ability to do that at this time.

Werman: Well, it remains a very confusing situation in Mali. Thanks very much for bringing a bit of clarity to it. Journalist Peter Chilson teaches writing at the University of Washington. He was speaking to us from Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Thank you, Peter.

Chilson: Thank you.

Chicago’s Other Summit: The Future of Afghanistan’s Women

Carol Zall — Mon, 21 May 2012 13:50:57 +0000

Anchor Aaron Schachter talks with journalist Gayle Lemmon about a “shadow summit” on Afghanistan’s women that took place Sunday in Chicago alongside the NATO summit there.

The summit was organized by Amnesty International.

Meanwhile, protesters have been demonstrating outside the main NATO summit in Chicago.

Aaron Schachter: President Obama’s focus was on Afghanistan today, on the second and final day of the NATO Summit in Chicago. Obama and other leaders signed the pact to officially end the war in Afghanistan in 2014. The agreement calls for an irreversible transition in the country, with Afghan forces in charge of security by next summer. That transition was also discussed at another summit in Chicago yesterday. It was a shadow summit on Afghan women organized by Amnesty International. Journalist Gayle Lemmon has reported widely on Afghanistan’s women, and she was at the meeting. In fact she moderated the panel there that included former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Lemmon says that when it comes to deciding Afghanistan’s future:

Gayle Lemmon: Women do still remain in the shadows of the conversation. And I think that was the point of Amnesty trying to bring a number of people together to have this discussion. And one thing that was so interesting was Secretary of State Albright talking about the fact that she still has to persuade policy makers. She and Ambassador Revere and Secretary Clinton and a number of others, still has to persuade policy makers that women should be at the table rather than with their noses pressed against the window.

Schachter: And why do you think this isn’t part of the discussion?

Lemmon: You know I asked them that on the panel and their answer was that because it’s still seen as a trade off, right? Supporting women versus supporting security. Rather than one complementing the other, that when you have women involved in their communities, communities are more stable, more secure, and more financially prosperous, which does make a difference in terms of the security. And we’re not talking about fancy things, we’re talking about the right to go to work, and the right to go to school, to contribute to their own community. And I think trying to frame it as a plus, rather than a trade off is the challenge facing policy makers.

Schachter: Now you were part of two panels at the shadow summit. Did you hear anything at the conference that you hadn’t heard before?

Lemmon: You know I, yeah I have done a lot of reporting. So most of it I’ve heard, but there was a really fascinating debate between two women leaders about whether or not Taliban negotiations were a good idea, and possibly fruitful. On one side, you know, one group of Afghan women who were there at the table, said you know look, you cant negotiate with the Taliban because they’ve tried that in Pakistan and they promised they would protect girl’s schools and women’s right to work and those promises went to, you know, nothing, almost immediately. And then there on the other side, there were women who said, look we have to be at the table. We may not love the idea of these negotiations, but if we are not at the table as Congresswoman Schakowsky says, we might be on the menu. So I think that is what the discussion really centered around. Do you engage, or do you not?

Schachter: What has to change, do you think, in order to insure that the progress that has been made for women in Afghanistan continues rather than going backwards?

Lemmon: I think there is a lot that has still to be done and the question is really whether you go back to a time, you know, in 2001 where women couldn’t leave the house by themselves, couldn’t go to work, couldn’t get educated, or whether you build on the some of the gains that have been made. And when you spend time on the ground with men and women, who are really fighting for their societies, you realize that the desire for progress and the hunger to be a part of the rest of the world is enormous, particularly among the young generation. What I do get concerned about in terms of the future for some of the people I’ve reported on for years is that I think for years the international community has seen women as a pet project, rather than a stability indicator. And the truth is that in neighborhoods and in communities where women are contributing, you do see the benefits to families, to men and to women. And I still think it goes back to people seeing this as an either or, rather than something that benefits everyone.

Schachter: Journalist Gayle Lemmon speaking to us about yesterday’s shadow summit on Afghan women that was alongside the NATO Summit in Chicago. She’s the author of The Dressmaker of Khair Khana. Thanks very much Gayle.

Lemmon: Thank you.

Follow @gaylelemmon

Working Full Time as Janitor at Columbia University, Man from Former Yugoslavia Earns Columbia Degree in Classics

Carol Zall — Wed, 09 May 2012 13:20:04 +0000

Gac Filipaj immigrated from the former Yugoslavia to the US in 1992.

After settling in the Bronx, he started studying English, then got a job at Columbia University as a Janitor.

Taking advantage of tuition reduction for employees, Filipaj then enrolled in classes at Columbia. While working full-time as a janitor, Filipaj started studying the Classics in 2000, and he’s now earned his bachelor’s degree.

Marco Werman: In many ways our next story is like that of many immigrants here in the U.S. Gac Filipaj left his home in the former Yugoslavia in 1992. He settled in the Bronx and started taking English classes. After a while, Filipaj landed a job as a janitor at Columbia University. That’s where the story changes a bit. Taking advantage of the tuition benefits for employees, Filipaj enrolled in Columbia’s School of Continuing Education and then its School of General Studies focusing on the Classics. Now, Gac Filipaj who is 52 will earn his Bachelor’s Degree from Columbia on Sunday. Mr. Filipaj, I know you are in the middle of a 16-hour shift right now, so thank you for taking a few minutes of your day to speak with us. How long has it taken you studying part-time while working to earn this degree?

Gac Filipaj: It took me 12 years.

Werman: Twelve years.

Filipaj: But prior to that, occasionally, I was taking English classes for foreigners.

Werman: And you were working the whole time.

Filipaj: Yes, I was working full-time and I was just a part-time student.

Werman: That’s a tough schedule. Tell me about your story. Where did you live in the former Yugoslavia before you left?

Filipaj: I lived in Montenegro. I am from the countryside. Ethnically, I am Albanian. I registered in 1978 at the law school in Belgrade as a part-time student and was working and helping my family in the family farm. Then, the troubles, political troubles started in Yugoslavia and I finally had to come to the territories of Uncle Sam, and I’m lucky and happy for that. I moved to the United States in 1992.

Werman: Then, how did you end up at Columbia?

Filipaj: I took English classes in a high school in the Bronx and one of my English teachers, after I asked which is the best University in New York, told me it is Columbia University. So, I said that I’m gonna try to find a job and to work for Columbia and he said, “Yeah, you may even take classes over there.” He said, “You may even get the chance maybe to go to college.” Now, today I am done; I’m finished.

Werman: Yeah, you must feel great.

Filipaj: Yeah.

Werman: What was your favorite class?

Filipaj: My favorite class was ‘Supervised research in Latin Literature’ studying Seneca’s Letters.

Werman: Interesting. Gac, did your fellow students in Columbia know that you also worked as a janitor at Columbia?

Filipaj: Some of them did not know and then they come to the building where I work. I have a seen couple of times that when they saw me the first time they were surprised a little bit, you know, like the reaction, “Oh, this guy is in my class but he cleans; he’s a cleaner.”

Werman: You’ll be officially graduating next week but you’re still working full-time as a janitor at Columbia. Given the economy right now, I suppose you don’t want to give a job up like that.

Filipaj: I have to make my living and I cannot quit my job yet. So, I’ve worked and I’ll be working until I find something better, hopefully.

Werman: You know, if you think of your own travels from Montenegro to the United States and then your studies and your work at Columbia, it kind of sounds like an odyssey, you could say. Is there a piece of literature in your studies of the Classics that you kind of relate to?

Filipaj: I don’t know about that but I do love the Iliad more than the Odyssey.

Werman: Why do you like the Iliad more than the Odyssey?

Filipaj: I think tragic endings draw me more than the happy ones. Odyssey survived, Achilles died. So, I just admire more people who being heroes sacrifice everything, even the life.

Werman: It sounds like a very Balkan spirit. Am I being too presumptuous?

Filipaj: Maybe, maybe, I don’t know [laughs].

Werman: [laughs] Okay. Gac Filipaj will be graduating from Columbia University this Sunday. Gac, congratulations again. Thanks for speaking with us.

Filipaj: Thank you very much.

video platform
video management
video solutions
video player

Controversy Over Shakil Afridi Exemplifies Tensions Between US and Pakistan

Carol Zall — Fri, 04 May 2012 12:50:58 +0000

Dr. Shakil Afridi was an important Pakistani medical official – but he also allegedly worked for the CIA, helping them to track Osama Bin Laden in the tribal areas near Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan.

Afridi has been held in secret detention by Pakistani intelligence since last year.

He has reportedly told Pakistani intelligence agents that he was introduced to the CIA by the humanitarian organization Save The Children.

Save the Children has denied this – and say that the allegation has had a negative impact on their ability to operate inside Pakistan.

Marco Werman talks with New York Times reporter Declan Walsh, who has been following Afridi’s story.

Marco Werman: This week President Obama has gone out of his way to remind Americans about the death of Osama bin Ladin a year ago. There was that campaign ad featuring Bill Clinton praising Obama for authorizing the raid that killed the al-Qaeda leader and Obama’s secret trip to Afghanistan was timed to coincide with the anniversary too. The US raid on bin Ladin’s compound in Pakistan is still, a year later, a cause of friction between Washington and Islamabad. So is the fate of one man who has been detained by Pakistan since shortly after the raid. He’s a Pakistani doctor named Shakil Afridi. The New York Times Declan Walsh in Islamabad reported on his story this week. Declan just who is Dr. Shakil Afridi and why has he been detained by Pakistani Intelligence for nearly a year now?

Declan Walsh: Dr. Afridi, at the time of his detention, he was the Surgeon General in Khyber Agency along the Afghan border. So he’s a pretty senior Pakistani medical official, but he was picked up 2 weeks after the bin Ladin raid by Pakistani Intelligence because they had received information that Dr. Afridi had in fact been working for the CIA in the run up to the May 2nd raid by the American Navy Seals and that he had in fact been running a vaccination campaign in the neighborhood around bin Ladin’s house before the raid in order to try and get DNA evidence from the inhabitants of the house so that the CIA could confirm that bin Ladin was living inside.

Werman: And is there any doubt that Dr. Afridi was working for the CIA?

Walsh: At this point, there’s really not much doubt. Particularly since Leon Panetta, the Defense Secretary, who at the time of the raid of course was the CIA chief, and he came out in January and made a public statement to the program ’60 Minutes’ effectively owning Dr. Afridi, admitting that he had worked for the CIA and appealing to the Pakistani authorities to release him, saying that Dr. Afridi had not been doing anything against the Pakistani state, but rather that he had been helping the CIA to catch someone who was a common enemy to both Pakistan and the US. In other words, Osama bin Ladin.

Werman: Right. So what was the doctor actually doing to help the CIA?

Walsh: It turns out that he had actually been working for the CIA for several years. His task was to continue with his normal work in Khyber Agency and that involved moving around in a very sensitive part of the country where the CIA wanted to gather intelligence. So as we have established this week, the CIA had basically employed Dr. Afridi to keep his eyes and ears open and pass on any information about al-Qaeda operatives in that area that would be of use to them. This was his normal mode of operation, but then when the Abbottabod operation came up, it was slightly different. In that point, he was actually contracted to run this special vaccination campaign, ostensibly to immunize the local inhabitants against Hepatitis B, but his real job was to collect blood samples from the bin Ladin house that could be used to confirm to US Intelligence that bin Ladin was inside.

Werman: Now the story doesn’t end there though. Not by a long shot. You’ve reported that Afridi has told the Pakistanis that he was introduced to the CIA through the aid group Save the Children. Save the Children denies this. Do you have any sense where the truth lies Declan?

Walsh: Dr. Afridi’s alleged testimony in detention has caused huge difficulties for Save the Children in Pakistan over the last year. At one point, the agency believed that Pakistani Intelligence wanted to shut them down completely, to expel them from the country. And there have been restrictions on their movement, restrictions on the import of medicines that are used to treat children, which Save the Children says at one point resulted in 35,000 children in the tribal areas missing their treatment. So it’s had a very considerable impact on them. And it’s not just Save the Children that has had problems in this case. Most of the western aid agencies here have complained that over the last year they have come under very intense and negative scrutiny from Pakistani Intelligence. And this largely stems from Dr. Afridi’s claim that back in 2008, as he’s told Pakistani Intelligence, he was introduced to the CIA via a Save the Children employee. Save the Children has denied this very vociferously and they basically say that while they had some connection with Dr. Afridi, in the sense that he had participated in medical training courses they ran for 4 years in a row, that otherwise they had no significant contact with him and their sense is that basically he’s scapegoating them to try and reduce his affiliation with the CIA or present some sort of alternative explanation for his actions.

Werman: The New York Times Declan Walsh in Islamabad telling us about the case of Dr. Shakil Afridi. Thanks a lot Declan.

Walsh: My pleasure.

Afghans Awake to New Agreement with US

Carol Zall — Wed, 02 May 2012 13:00:43 +0000

Tuesday night President Obama flew into Afghanistan after dark for an unannounced visit to the country.

Once in the Afghan capital, Kabul, he and Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed a new agreement that governs future relations between the US and Afghanistan.

The agreement commits the US to a role in Afghanistan’s future beyond the 2014 withdrawal date of most US troops.

Hours after President Obama left Afghanistan, at least seven people were killed in a suicide bomb attack in Kabul. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack.

Marco Werman talks with Sultana Parvanta, a Kabul resident and a consultant on economic development and women’s issues, about her reaction to President Obama’s visit to Afghanistan last night.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman and this is “The World”, a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI, and WGBH in Boston. President Obama said last night that the tide has turned in Afghanistan. But just hours after his surprise trip to the country, Taliban insurgents answered with more of the same. They staged an attack in Kabul that killed at least seven people. The President traveled in secret to Afghanistan to sign a new strategic agreement. The deal spells out a long term American role in the country beyond 2014 when most US troops are scheduled to leave. While many Americans heard about the deal from the President himself in a televised speech last night, most Afghans didn’t even know about Obama’s middle of the night visit until they woke up hours later. Sultana Parvanta lives in Kabul. She’s a consultant in economic development. Sultana, what’s your reaction to President Obama’s surprise visit?

Sultana Parvanta: Well, it’s always good to have President Obama visiting us. It’s just we didn’t know. Nobody knew. He came in the middle of the night, signed an agreement, and then left. A couple of interesting things I have, my personal view is that it’s really good to have some assurance in connection with the United States in Afghanistan beyond 2014. We’re very worried about the few recent developments and we were very concerned about what’s going to happen to us after the NATO troops and the forces leave. There are a lot of concerns because there’s still not peace and stability here. The other point that I’m thinking about is that nor he nor Mr. Karzai gave any information prior to the visit about what are the contents of this agreement. We know there were some rumors and some information, but nothing was specific.

Werman: Well, news is just beginning to spread in Kabul about what was in this agreement the two Presidents signed last night. How do people feel about what they’ve learned so far?

Parvanta: I think that the people are encouraged more. The people who really want peace and stability here, they’re encouraged. It’s almost like the most important thing is that we will have some support and stability here, and the contents look good. I think personally the most important one for me and for my friends is the piece about stressing the point about election. It was very important to us that the election will not be hijacked, the process will happen, it will be clear and transparent, and it will be with the help and monitoring of the international assistance over the process of election. We have a very bad memory and bad experience in 2009 when the election was full of fraud and cheating and really bad things happened. And so this is a transition time. It’s the transition of the Afghanistan government, it’s the transition of the forces. It’s a critical time, so yeah. The most important part of that was perhaps the election one.

Werman: Right. Transparent elections, obviously a big part of that new strategic agreement. I mean Hamid Karzai was seen as one of the problems with those parliamentary elections back in 2009 as we were saying. He has had his ups and downs in Afghanistan. What is Karzai’s credibility like these days? Do the Afghan people trust him to sign this agreement on their behalf?

Parvanta: It’s kind of continuously being on the minus side, I would say. It’s decreasing. And we are Afghans who, again, have seen the brutality of the Taliban every day and the terrorists and he calling them brothers. “My brothers”, you know, I mean we don’t want the President’s brothers to be terrorizing us every day. You know, today, the body of those kids who were on the way to school and they were killed in a very brutal manner. No. No. No. We just don’t like this kind of stuff. You just can’t do that, you know. So they are showing their power and their negative influence everywhere. I’m afraid they’re strong and they’re getting help, and it’s not helping when our President calls the Taliban brothers and is extending a hand of friendship to them. It’s very confusing in terms of the world’s politics, the west. The US are negotiation with Taliban. I mean what is this negotiating? You know, what are they negotiation about? For ten years this negotiation was trying to happen. Meanwhile, they’re killing us everyday in our streets.

Werman: Sultana Parvanta, a Kabul resident. Thank you very much for your time. Always good to speak with you. Thanks.

Parvanta: Oh, thank you, Marco.

Popular Egyptian Comedian Adel Imam Convicted for Offending Islam

Carol Zall — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:50:41 +0000

On Tuesday, an Egyptian court upheld a conviction against Adel Imam, a popular comedian and actor there.

Imam, who is 71 and whose career spans five decades, has been sentenced to jail and fined — convicted of offending Islam in his films.

Marco Werman talks to Reporter Ursula Lindsay in Cairo, who says that those who work in the creative arts find the conviction to be very troubling.

Marco Werman: In Egypt it’s still all about what comes after the revolution. The country is getting ready for the presidential election next month. The previous parliamentary election, Egypt’s first after the revolution, were dominated by Islamist parties. That’s raised concerns among more secular Egyptians; those concerns were heightened yesterday when an Egyptian court upheld a conviction against Adel Imam; he’s one of Egypt’s most popular comedians. The actor was convicted of offending Islam in his films, and was sentenced to jail. Reporter, Ursula Lindsey, is following the story in Cairo. Tell us who exactly Adel Imam is, and how popular is his work in Egypt?

Ursula Lindsey: He’s really one of Egypt’s best known actors and probably one of the best known throughout the Middle East. He’s had a career of close to five decades and he’s a really well-known name in Egyptian cinema.

Werman: And so, what kind of films does he make and what are the objections that are now being raised to his work?

Lindsey: Well, he’s made every kind of film, but in quite a few, both dramas and comedies of the 80s and 90s, he portrayed in a quite broad stereotypical way sometimes characters that were Islamist or fundamentalist. You know, he portrayed characters wearing a fake beards, and the objections that are being raised are to some of these portrayals, or to remarks that are made about religion in movies that were really quite broad comedies.

Werman: So who is behind these charges, that his work is insulting to Islam?

Lindsey: Well the case is being brought forward by an Islamist lawyer. There are quite a few lawyers who bring these kind of cases and tend to have Islamist sympathies and connections and support, it’s not an uncommon charge. It’s one that’s deployed quite regularly.

Werman: In Egypt is it possible for any lawyer to initiate a case like this?

Lindsey: Yes, it is and so, this is kind of basically censorship through legal harassment is something that is a common technique. The difference now perhaps, is that as Egypt has witnessed the legalization of Islamist groups, the great electoral victories of Islamist parties recently. Of course, Islamist groups and their supporters feel that they are ascendants and they are emboldened and the courts themselves may be more likely to lend a sympathetic ear to these kinds of charges.

Werman: So Ursula, what’s then the reaction in Egypt to this conviction?

Lindsey: Well among artists and people who work in the cultural field, it is seen as a very worry-some sign of the kinds of censorship that artists could face. I mean, both because of his very high profile and because the basis of the charges seem so flimsy, I mean, if this is the kind of portrayal that can lead to a 3 month jail term, then artists are obviously very worried that further kinds of charges like this could be deployed against anybody.

Werman: Most people hearing this interview are probably thinking, “But they just had a revolution in Egypt so, what have the political changes and the oust of Mubarak meant for freedom of expression in Egypt for both the arts and elsewhere?”

Lindsey: Well actually artists have really pushed to have a greater freedom of expression for themselves. We have seen an explosion of artistic activity, you know, street festivals, public concerts, movie screenings, all sorts of unlicensed, free-wheeling, cultural activity that would not have been possible before. On the other hand, the laws have not been changed, so the possibility of taking someone to court on this charge of insulting Islam is still there, and that in fact, with this new 75% Islamist parliament, the Islamist majority is reportedly drafting a new law that would regulate censorship of movies and film.

Werman: Reporter Ursula Lindsey in Cairo, thank you very much.

Lindsey: Thank you.

Obama: Preventing Atrocities is Core Security Interest

Carol Zall — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:00:18 +0000

President Obama gave a speech on Monday at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, in which he highlighted the importance of trying to prevent potential genocide and atrocities before they happen.

The President said that preventing atrocities was a “core national security interest” and he outlined some of the diplomatic and political tools that can be used before military intervention comes into play. He also announced that the newly created Atrocities Prevention Board would be meeting for the first time today.

Marco Werman talks with Harvard professor Sarah Sewall, who founded the Mass Atrocity Response Operations Project, about the President’s speech.

Marco Werman: I am Marco Werman. This is The World. President Obama today tackled the question that’s always near the top of any President’s foreign policy agenda and that is how to prevent atrocities around the globe.

President Barrack Obama: Too often the world has failed to prevent the killing of innocents on a massive scale and we are haunted by the atrocities that we did not stop and the lives we did not save.

Werman: Obama was speaking this morning at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, but his speech went beyond references to the holocaust or to the 1994 Rwanda genocide. It touched on current challenges like stopping the violence in Syria and Sudan, and the President made the case for making sure that addressing such challenges is a top U.S. priority.

Obama: Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States of America.

Werman: That, Obama stressed, doesn’t mean military intervention every time. He said the U.S. also has many diplomatic and political tools to tackle the problem. The President added one more tool today, he announced the first meeting of his Atrocities Prevention Board at the White House. Harvard professor Sarah Sewall founded the Mass Atrocity Response Operations Project. She’s currently on a research appointment with the Naval War College. She says the new Atrocities Prevention Board is particularly significant in one respect.

Sarah Sewall: It institutionalizes ownership and responsibility at a relatively high level, at the Assistant Secretary level, almost guaranteeing that high level attention will be brought to bear when situations begin to smell troubling. That’s a very important development because it prevents the U.S. government from saying, “Oh, we didn’t know; oh, we didn’t notice.” It really forces a level of accountability that’s fundamentally different.

Werman: Lower down the ladder there are citizens who watch what’s going on on TV around the world. How do you connect the urgency of seeing atrocities…take Syria for example right now which looks like atrocities for many people…from seeing atrocities and getting governments to do something about it?

Sewall: I think it’s really important to make two points in response to that profoundly important question which is that one, it’s one thing to identify when atrocities are occurring but it’s another thing entirely to respond in ways that are both effective and sustainable. Part of what the President’s speech does is it highlights the very proactive ways in which the Obama administration really took the lead in responding to mass atrocities in Libya. Syria is a very different circumstance. It requires a different set of responses. So, part of what you need to be able to do is explain to Americans that the answer isn’t always going to be to send in the military, that there are tools that we can use that are less invasive, less costly and hopefully more effective, particularly if they are used earlier in a crisis.

Werman: Now, one specific step the President mentioned today was an executive order he signed that he said authorizes new sanctions against the Syrian government and Iran and those that abet them for using technologies to monitor and track and target citizens for violence. The President added that these technologies should be in place to empower citizens, not to repress them. How important do you think it is to be able to sanction the use of technology in this way, or is it something that might be hard to enforce?

Sewall: Well, it’s a really interesting question and I think the answer will depend on how we implement it in practice. Technology can work in a variety of different ways but the technology…We just had a conference a couple of weeks ago where we were looking at the use of surveillance technology as a way to alert the international community to the potential for mass violence. Here the Obama administration is saying when technology is used as tools for aiding and abetting mass violence we are going to sanction it. So, technology can cut both ways. What’s significant is that the administration is saying that it wants to look at sanctioning tools as well as sanctioning individuals and holding them to account.

Werman: Sarah, how does this really change anything in a truly concrete way?

Sewall: The rubber hits the road when the next crisis happens, but what the President’s policy does is it makes a very clear statement that he wants to know when problems are emerging. He doesn’t want to be kept in the dark which is what happened with President Clinton during the genocide in Rwanda. President Obama has said, “As President of the United States, I want to know if there are likely to be mass human rights abuses, and I want to be able to have our government ready to act in a variety of ways hopefully to prevent rather than to respond to those; and I want to use partnerships of all different kinds and a variety of tools to prevent.” We’ll see whether that makes a difference in the next crisis.

Werman: Sarah Sewall founded the Mass Atrocity Response Operations Project and she’s a professor of Public Policy at Harvard. Sarah, thank you very much.

Sewall: Thank you for having me.