El Pais Article Discusses "Liberating Spain from Shackles of the Euro"

The El Pais Screwdriver Blog openly asks “Are we to Liberate the Euro?“

Here is a Mish-modified translation:

Today Spain has reached a record number of unemployed. Although we do not like the current state of things, no one seems to know against whom to direct their anger.

Actually, we are under a dictatorship perhaps worse than the Portuguese or Spanish forty years ago because it is more subtle and works almost invisibly. And we can embody it too, not in an institution or a person, but with a symbol: the euro.

There are many reasons to believe that Spain would not be as bad off out of the single currency. To explore this question we must look at least three things: First, what is the profile of the countries that have left monetary unions? Second, what does empirical evidence tells us regarding effectiveness of countries have left currency unions? Third, what are the economic and social conditions that need to be taken into account in making such a decision?

Spain fits he profile of the countries that have tended to get out of currency unions: large countries economically developed with well-established democracies.

Second, what empirical evidence tell us? According to the IMF, no countries have been able to make needed fiscal consolidation without a mixture of structural reforms and monetary policy changes. Spain compares favorably in this respect to Argentina and Korean cases. Argentina went off the dollar peg in 2002. Although initially the Argentina economy suffered a severe recession, the year of the return to the country was growing weight (and in fact has grown at an average rate of over 7% from that year until 2011).

Third, we must take into account, the real exchange rate, the financing capacity of a country, and the behavior of its exports. In relation to the three aspects, Spain has bad fundamentals including a competitiveness problem that comes largely from an overvalued euro and a long-term funding problem with interest rates far higher than other countries in the eurozone.

To all this we must add the “social” setting: in addition to more than six million unemployed, Spain has become the second most unequal country in the eurozone and in the fourth of the entire European Union in terms of income distribution.

It is difficult to plan in advance what would be the results of a euro exit for the Spanish economy. Initially this would mean an impoverishment of the population, but classical theory tells us is that the recovery of monetary sovereignty coupled with the devaluation of our new currency push exports and thus growth so that the country would create jobs. Job creation would without doubt have a positive impact on the reduction of our current levels of inequality.

The shackles of yesterday’s dictatorships are different than today. Or are they? It depends on how you look at things. Will we also be free of these shackles?

The author of the above article is Antonio Estella, Professor of European Union Law and Professor of Administrative Law at the University Carlos III of Madrid. He holds a PhD in law from the European University Institute and holds a Master in European Law from the Free University of Brussels.

The important point is not agreement or disagreement with the author, but rather that a eurozone exit is now openly presented as a viable option in a mainstream Spanish newspaper.

Expect such sentiment to grow along with rising unemployment and a sinking Spanish economy.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Mike “Mish” Shedlock is a registered investment advisor representative for SitkaPacific Capital Management. Sitka Pacific is an asset management firm whose goal is strong performance and low volatility, regardless of market direction. Visit http://www.sitkapacific.com/account_management.html to learn more about wealth management and capital preservation strategies of Sitka Pacific.

Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis

El Pais Article Discusses "Liberating Spain from Shackles of the Euro"

How Monsanto Went From Selling Aspirin to Controlling Our Food Supply

Monsanto controls our food, poisons our land, and influences all three branches of government.

This article was published in partnership with GlobalPossibilities.org.

Forty percent of the crops grown in the United States contain their genes. They produce the world’s top selling herbicide. Several of their factories are now toxic Superfund sites. They spend millions lobbying the government each year. It’s time we take a closer look at who’s controlling our food, poisoning our land, and influencing all three branches of government. To do that, the watchdog group Food and Water Watch recently published a corporate profile of Monsanto.

Patty Lovera, Food and Water Watch assistant director, says they decided to focus on Monsanto because they felt a need to “put together a piece where people can see all of the aspects of this company.”

“It really strikes us when we talk about how clear it is that this is a chemical company that wanted to expand its reach,” she says. “A chemical company that started buying up seed companies.” She feels it’s important “for food activists to understand all of the ties between the seeds and the chemicals.”

Monsanto the Chemical Company

Monsanto was founded as a chemical company in 1901, named for the maiden name of its founder’s wife. Its first product was the artificial sweetener saccharin. The company’s own telling of its history emphasizes its agricultural products, skipping forward from its founding to 1945, when it began manufacturing agrochemicals like the herbicide 2,4-D.

Prior to its entry into the agricultural market, Monsanto produced some harmless – even beneficial! – products like aspirin. It also made plastics, synthetic rubber, caffeine, and vanillin, an artificial vanilla flavoring. On the not-so-harmless side, it began producing toxic PCBs in the 1930s.

According to the new report, a whopping 99 percent of all PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls, used in the U.S. were produced at a single Monsanto plant in Sauget, IL. The plant churned out toxic PCBs from the 1930s until they were banned in 1976. Used as coolants and lubricants in electronics, PCBs are carcinogenic and harmful to the liver, endocrine system, immune system, reproductive system, developmental system, skin, eye, and brain.

Even after the initial 1982 cleanup of this plant, Sauget is still home to two Superfund sites. (A Superfund site is defined by the EPA as “an uncontrolled or abandoned place where hazardous waste is located, possibly affecting local ecosystems or people.”) This is just one of several Monsanto facilities that became Superfund sites.

Monsanto’s Shift to Agriculture

Despite its modern-day emphasis on agriculture, Monsanto did not even create an agricultural division within the company until 1960. It soon began churning out new pesticides, each colorfully named under a rugged Western theme: Lasso, Roundup, Warrant, Lariat, Bullet, Harness, etc.

Left out of Monsanto’s version of its historical highlights is an herbicide called Agent Orange. The defoliant, a mix of herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, was used extensively during the war in Vietnam. The nearly 19 million gallons sprayed in that country between 1962 and 1971 were contaminated with dioxin, a carcinogen so potent that it is measured and regulated at concentrations of parts per trillion. Dioxin was created as a byproduct of Agent Orange’s manufacturing process, and both American veterans and Vietnamese people suffered health problems from the herbicide’s use.

Monsanto’s fortunes changed forever in 1982, when it genetically engineered a plant cell. The team responsible, led by Ernest Jaworski, consisted of Robb Fraley, Stephen Rogers, and Robert Horsch. Today, Fraley is Monsanto’s executive vice president and chief technology officer. Horsch also rose to the level of vice president at Monsanto, but he left after 25 years to join the Gates Foundation. There, he works on increasing crop yields in Sub-Saharan Africa. Together, the team received the National Medal of Technology from President Clinton in 1998.

The company did not shift its focus from chemicals to genetically engineered seeds overnight. In fact, it was another 12 years before it commercialized the first genetically engineered product, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH), a controversial hormone used to make dairy cows produce more milk. And it was not until 1996 that it first brought genetically engineered seeds, Roundup Ready soybeans, onto the market.

By 2000, the company had undergone such a sea change from its founding a century before that it claims it is almost a different company. In Monsanto’s telling of its own history, it emphasizes a split between the “original” Monsanto Company and the Monsanto Company of today. In 2000, the Monsanto Company entered a merger and changed its name to Pharmacia. The newly formed Pharmacia then spun off its agricultural division as an independent company named Monsanto Company.

Do the mergers and spinoffs excuse Monsanto for the sins of the past committed by the company bearing the same name? Lovera does not think so. “I"m sure there"s some liability issues they have to deal with – their various production plants that are now superfund sites,” she responds. “So I"m sure there was legal thinking about which balance sheet you put those liabilities on” when the company split. She adds that the notion that today’s Monsanto is not the same as the historical Monsanto that made PCBs is “a nice PR bullet for them.”

But, she adds, “even taking that at face value, that they are an agriculture company now, they are still producing seeds that are made to be used with chemicals they produce.” For example, Roundup herbicide alone made up more than a quarter of their sales in 2011. The proportion of their business devoted to chemicals is by no means insignificant.

Monsanto’s pesticide product line includes a number of chemicals named as Bad Actors by Pesticide Action Network. They include Alachlor (a carcinogen, water contaminant, developmental/reproductive toxin, and a suspected endocrine disruptor), Acetochlor (a carcinogen and suspected endocrine disruptor), Atrazine (a carcinogen and suspected endocrine disruptor), Clopyralid (high acute toxicity), Dicamba (developmental/reproductive toxin), and Thiodicarb (a carcinogen and cholinesterase inhibitor).

Roundup: The Benign Herbicide?

Defenders of Monsanto might reply to the charge that Roundup is no Agent Orange. In fact, the herbicide is viewed as so benign and yet effective that its inventor, John E. Franz, won the National Medal of Technology. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, kills everything green and growing, but according to Monsanto, it only affects a metabolic pathway in plants, so it does not harm animals. It’s also said to break down quickly in the soil, leaving few traces on the environment after its done its job.

Asked about the harmlessness of Roundup, Lovera replies, “That’s the PR behind Roundup – how benign it was and you can drink it and there’s nothing to worry about here. There are people who dispute that.” For example there is an accusation that Roundup causes birth defects. “We don’t buy the benign theory,” continues Lovera, “But what’s really interesting is that we aren’t going to be having this conversation pretty soon because Roundup isn’t working anymore.”

Lovera is referring to “Roundup-resistant weeds,” weeds that have evolved in the past decade and a half to survive being sprayed by Roundup. Nearly all soybeans grown in the United States is Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready variety, as are 80 percent of cotton and 73 percent of corn. Farmers spray entire fields with Roundup, killing only the weeds while the Roundup Ready crops survive. With such heavy use of Roundup on America’s farmfields, any weed – maybe one in a million – with an ability to survive in that environment would survive and pass on its genes in its seeds.

By 1998, just two years after the introduction of Roundup Ready soybeans, scientists documented the first Roundup-resistant weed. A second was found in 2000, and three more popped up in 2004. To date, there are 24 different weeds that have evolved resistance to Roundup worldwide. And once they invade a farmer’s field, it doesn’t matter if his crops are Roundup-resistant, because Roundup won’t work anymore. Either the weeds get to stay, or the farmer needs to find a new chemical, pull the weeds by hand, or find some other way to deal with the problem.

“We’ve wasted Roundup by overusing it,” says Lovera. She and other food activists worry about the harsher chemicals that farmers are switching to, and the genetically engineered crops companies like Monsanto are developing to use with them.

Currently, there are genetically engineered crops waiting for government approval that are made to tolerate the herbicides 2,4-D, Dicamba and Isoxaflutole. (These are not all from Monsanto – some are from their competitors.) None of these chemicals are as “benign” as Roundup. Isoxaflutole is, in fact, a carcinogen. Let’s spray that on our food!

Corporate Control of Seeds

No discussion of Monsanto is complete without a mention of the immense amount of control it exerts on the seed industry.

“What it boils down to is between them buying seed companies outright, their incredible aggressive legal maneuvering, their patenting of everything, and their enforcement of those patents, they really have locked up a huge part of the seed supply,” notes Lovera. “So they just exercise an unprecedented control over the entire seed sector. Monsanto products constitute 40 percent of all crop acres in the country.”

Monsanto began buying seed companies as far back as 1982. (One can see an infographic of seed industry consolidation here.) Some of Monsanto’s most significant purchases were Asgrow (soybeans), Delta and Pine Land (cotton), DeKalb (corn), and Seminis (vegetables). One that deserves special mention is their purchase of Holden’s Foundation Seeds in 1997.

George Naylor, an Iowa farmer who grows corn and soybeans, calls Holden’s “The independent source of germplasm for corn.” Small seed companies could buy inbred lines from Holden’s to cross them and produce their own hybrids. Large seed companies like Pioneer did their own breeding, but small operations relied on Holden’s or Iowa State University. But Iowa State got out of the game and Monsanto bought Holden’s.

Monsanto’s tactics for squashing its competition are perhaps unrivaled. They use their power to get seed dealers to not to stock many of their competitors products, for example. When licensing their patented genetically engineered traits to seed companies, they restrict the seed companies’ ability to combine Monsanto’s traits with those of their competitors. And, famously, farmers who plant Monsanto’s patented seeds sign contracts prohibiting them from saving and replanting their seeds. Yet, to date, U.S. antitrust laws have not clamped down on these practices.

With the concentrated control of the seed industry, farmers already complain of lack of options. For example, Naylor says he’s had a hard time finding non-genetically engineered soybean seeds. Most corn seeds are now pre-treated with pesticides, so farmers wishing to find untreated seeds will have a tough time finding any. Once a company or a handful of companies control an entire market, then they can choose what to sell and at what price to sell it.

Furthermore, if our crops are too genetically homogenous, then they are vulnerable to a single disease or pest that can wipe them out. When farmers grow genetically diverse crops, then there is a greater chance that one variety or another will have resistance to new diseases. In that way, growing genetically diverse crops is like having insurance, or like diversifying your risk within your stock portfolio. 

Food and Water Watch Recommendations

At the end of its report, Food and Water Watch lists several recommendations. “There are a lot of ways that government policy could address the Monsanto hold on the food supply,” explains Lovera. “The most important thing is that it’s time to stop approval of genetically engineered crops to stop this arms race of the next crop and the next chemical.”

She also calls Monsanto “the poster child for the need for antitrust enforcement” – something that the Justice Department has yet to successfully deliver up. In fact, last November the government ended a three-year antitrust investigation of Monsanto.

A third recommendation Lovera hopes becomes a reality is mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. “If we had that label and we put that information in consumers’ hands, they could do more to avoid this company in their day-to-day lives,” she says.

In the meantime, all consumers can do to avoid genetically engineered foods is to buy organic for the handful of crops that are genetically engineered: corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, papaya, sugar beets, and alfalfa.

 

Related Stories

• Biotech"s Latest Creation: Franken-Apples Coming to a Store Near You


• What"s Bugging Your Meat? Feces and Antibiotics


• Goldman Prize Awards $ 150,000 to Six Environmental Leaders

AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed

How Monsanto Went From Selling Aspirin to Controlling Our Food Supply

How Monsanto Went From Selling Aspirin to Controlling Our Food Supply

Monsanto controls our food, poisons our land, and influences all three branches of government.

This article was published in partnership with GlobalPossibilities.org.

Forty percent of the crops grown in the United States contain their genes. They produce the world’s top selling herbicide. Several of their factories are now toxic Superfund sites. They spend millions lobbying the government each year. It’s time we take a closer look at who’s controlling our food, poisoning our land, and influencing all three branches of government. To do that, the watchdog group Food and Water Watch recently published a corporate profile of Monsanto.

Patty Lovera, Food and Water Watch assistant director, says they decided to focus on Monsanto because they felt a need to “put together a piece where people can see all of the aspects of this company.”

“It really strikes us when we talk about how clear it is that this is a chemical company that wanted to expand its reach,” she says. “A chemical company that started buying up seed companies.” She feels it’s important “for food activists to understand all of the ties between the seeds and the chemicals.”

Monsanto the Chemical Company

Monsanto was founded as a chemical company in 1901, named for the maiden name of its founder’s wife. Its first product was the artificial sweetener saccharin. The company’s own telling of its history emphasizes its agricultural products, skipping forward from its founding to 1945, when it began manufacturing agrochemicals like the herbicide 2,4-D.

Prior to its entry into the agricultural market, Monsanto produced some harmless – even beneficial! – products like aspirin. It also made plastics, synthetic rubber, caffeine, and vanillin, an artificial vanilla flavoring. On the not-so-harmless side, it began producing toxic PCBs in the 1930s.

According to the new report, a whopping 99 percent of all PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls, used in the U.S. were produced at a single Monsanto plant in Sauget, IL. The plant churned out toxic PCBs from the 1930s until they were banned in 1976. Used as coolants and lubricants in electronics, PCBs are carcinogenic and harmful to the liver, endocrine system, immune system, reproductive system, developmental system, skin, eye, and brain.

Even after the initial 1982 cleanup of this plant, Sauget is still home to two Superfund sites. (A Superfund site is defined by the EPA as “an uncontrolled or abandoned place where hazardous waste is located, possibly affecting local ecosystems or people.”) This is just one of several Monsanto facilities that became Superfund sites.

Monsanto’s Shift to Agriculture

Despite its modern-day emphasis on agriculture, Monsanto did not even create an agricultural division within the company until 1960. It soon began churning out new pesticides, each colorfully named under a rugged Western theme: Lasso, Roundup, Warrant, Lariat, Bullet, Harness, etc.

Left out of Monsanto’s version of its historical highlights is an herbicide called Agent Orange. The defoliant, a mix of herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, was used extensively during the war in Vietnam. The nearly 19 million gallons sprayed in that country between 1962 and 1971 were contaminated with dioxin, a carcinogen so potent that it is measured and regulated at concentrations of parts per trillion. Dioxin was created as a byproduct of Agent Orange’s manufacturing process, and both American veterans and Vietnamese people suffered health problems from the herbicide’s use.

Monsanto’s fortunes changed forever in 1982, when it genetically engineered a plant cell. The team responsible, led by Ernest Jaworski, consisted of Robb Fraley, Stephen Rogers, and Robert Horsch. Today, Fraley is Monsanto’s executive vice president and chief technology officer. Horsch also rose to the level of vice president at Monsanto, but he left after 25 years to join the Gates Foundation. There, he works on increasing crop yields in Sub-Saharan Africa. Together, the team received the National Medal of Technology from President Clinton in 1998.

The company did not shift its focus from chemicals to genetically engineered seeds overnight. In fact, it was another 12 years before it commercialized the first genetically engineered product, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH), a controversial hormone used to make dairy cows produce more milk. And it was not until 1996 that it first brought genetically engineered seeds, Roundup Ready soybeans, onto the market.

By 2000, the company had undergone such a sea change from its founding a century before that it claims it is almost a different company. In Monsanto’s telling of its own history, it emphasizes a split between the “original” Monsanto Company and the Monsanto Company of today. In 2000, the Monsanto Company entered a merger and changed its name to Pharmacia. The newly formed Pharmacia then spun off its agricultural division as an independent company named Monsanto Company.

Do the mergers and spinoffs excuse Monsanto for the sins of the past committed by the company bearing the same name? Lovera does not think so. “I"m sure there"s some liability issues they have to deal with – their various production plants that are now superfund sites,” she responds. “So I"m sure there was legal thinking about which balance sheet you put those liabilities on” when the company split. She adds that the notion that today’s Monsanto is not the same as the historical Monsanto that made PCBs is “a nice PR bullet for them.”

But, she adds, “even taking that at face value, that they are an agriculture company now, they are still producing seeds that are made to be used with chemicals they produce.” For example, Roundup herbicide alone made up more than a quarter of their sales in 2011. The proportion of their business devoted to chemicals is by no means insignificant.

Monsanto’s pesticide product line includes a number of chemicals named as Bad Actors by Pesticide Action Network. They include Alachlor (a carcinogen, water contaminant, developmental/reproductive toxin, and a suspected endocrine disruptor), Acetochlor (a carcinogen and suspected endocrine disruptor), Atrazine (a carcinogen and suspected endocrine disruptor), Clopyralid (high acute toxicity), Dicamba (developmental/reproductive toxin), and Thiodicarb (a carcinogen and cholinesterase inhibitor).

Roundup: The Benign Herbicide?

Defenders of Monsanto might reply to the charge that Roundup is no Agent Orange. In fact, the herbicide is viewed as so benign and yet effective that its inventor, John E. Franz, won the National Medal of Technology. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, kills everything green and growing, but according to Monsanto, it only affects a metabolic pathway in plants, so it does not harm animals. It’s also said to break down quickly in the soil, leaving few traces on the environment after its done its job.

Asked about the harmlessness of Roundup, Lovera replies, “That’s the PR behind Roundup – how benign it was and you can drink it and there’s nothing to worry about here. There are people who dispute that.” For example there is an accusation that Roundup causes birth defects. “We don’t buy the benign theory,” continues Lovera, “But what’s really interesting is that we aren’t going to be having this conversation pretty soon because Roundup isn’t working anymore.”

Lovera is referring to “Roundup-resistant weeds,” weeds that have evolved in the past decade and a half to survive being sprayed by Roundup. Nearly all soybeans grown in the United States is Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready variety, as are 80 percent of cotton and 73 percent of corn. Farmers spray entire fields with Roundup, killing only the weeds while the Roundup Ready crops survive. With such heavy use of Roundup on America’s farmfields, any weed – maybe one in a million – with an ability to survive in that environment would survive and pass on its genes in its seeds.

By 1998, just two years after the introduction of Roundup Ready soybeans, scientists documented the first Roundup-resistant weed. A second was found in 2000, and three more popped up in 2004. To date, there are 24 different weeds that have evolved resistance to Roundup worldwide. And once they invade a farmer’s field, it doesn’t matter if his crops are Roundup-resistant, because Roundup won’t work anymore. Either the weeds get to stay, or the farmer needs to find a new chemical, pull the weeds by hand, or find some other way to deal with the problem.

“We’ve wasted Roundup by overusing it,” says Lovera. She and other food activists worry about the harsher chemicals that farmers are switching to, and the genetically engineered crops companies like Monsanto are developing to use with them.

Currently, there are genetically engineered crops waiting for government approval that are made to tolerate the herbicides 2,4-D, Dicamba and Isoxaflutole. (These are not all from Monsanto – some are from their competitors.) None of these chemicals are as “benign” as Roundup. Isoxaflutole is, in fact, a carcinogen. Let’s spray that on our food!

Corporate Control of Seeds

No discussion of Monsanto is complete without a mention of the immense amount of control it exerts on the seed industry.

“What it boils down to is between them buying seed companies outright, their incredible aggressive legal maneuvering, their patenting of everything, and their enforcement of those patents, they really have locked up a huge part of the seed supply,” notes Lovera. “So they just exercise an unprecedented control over the entire seed sector. Monsanto products constitute 40 percent of all crop acres in the country.”

Monsanto began buying seed companies as far back as 1982. (One can see an infographic of seed industry consolidation here.) Some of Monsanto’s most significant purchases were Asgrow (soybeans), Delta and Pine Land (cotton), DeKalb (corn), and Seminis (vegetables). One that deserves special mention is their purchase of Holden’s Foundation Seeds in 1997.

George Naylor, an Iowa farmer who grows corn and soybeans, calls Holden’s “The independent source of germplasm for corn.” Small seed companies could buy inbred lines from Holden’s to cross them and produce their own hybrids. Large seed companies like Pioneer did their own breeding, but small operations relied on Holden’s or Iowa State University. But Iowa State got out of the game and Monsanto bought Holden’s.

Monsanto’s tactics for squashing its competition are perhaps unrivaled. They use their power to get seed dealers to not to stock many of their competitors products, for example. When licensing their patented genetically engineered traits to seed companies, they restrict the seed companies’ ability to combine Monsanto’s traits with those of their competitors. And, famously, farmers who plant Monsanto’s patented seeds sign contracts prohibiting them from saving and replanting their seeds. Yet, to date, U.S. antitrust laws have not clamped down on these practices.

With the concentrated control of the seed industry, farmers already complain of lack of options. For example, Naylor says he’s had a hard time finding non-genetically engineered soybean seeds. Most corn seeds are now pre-treated with pesticides, so farmers wishing to find untreated seeds will have a tough time finding any. Once a company or a handful of companies control an entire market, then they can choose what to sell and at what price to sell it.

Furthermore, if our crops are too genetically homogenous, then they are vulnerable to a single disease or pest that can wipe them out. When farmers grow genetically diverse crops, then there is a greater chance that one variety or another will have resistance to new diseases. In that way, growing genetically diverse crops is like having insurance, or like diversifying your risk within your stock portfolio. 

Food and Water Watch Recommendations

At the end of its report, Food and Water Watch lists several recommendations. “There are a lot of ways that government policy could address the Monsanto hold on the food supply,” explains Lovera. “The most important thing is that it’s time to stop approval of genetically engineered crops to stop this arms race of the next crop and the next chemical.”

She also calls Monsanto “the poster child for the need for antitrust enforcement” – something that the Justice Department has yet to successfully deliver up. In fact, last November the government ended a three-year antitrust investigation of Monsanto.

A third recommendation Lovera hopes becomes a reality is mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. “If we had that label and we put that information in consumers’ hands, they could do more to avoid this company in their day-to-day lives,” she says.

In the meantime, all consumers can do to avoid genetically engineered foods is to buy organic for the handful of crops that are genetically engineered: corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, papaya, sugar beets, and alfalfa.

 

Related Stories

• Biotech"s Latest Creation: Franken-Apples Coming to a Store Near You


• What"s Bugging Your Meat? Feces and Antibiotics


• Goldman Prize Awards $ 150,000 to Six Environmental Leaders

AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed

How Monsanto Went From Selling Aspirin to Controlling Our Food Supply

9/11: Phone Calls from the Towers [1/2]

9/11: Phone Calls from the Towers [1/2]

Clarification: Family Guy Boston Disaster Clips Were From Same Episode After All

[Zen: OK. Let"s get this straight. Now it turns out the 2 clips in the original post of the Family Guy episode depicting the two scenes about a disaster at the Boston Marathon WERE from the same episode!!! They were just strung together out of sequence but the implication was still loud and clear. (Even if they were different episodes it"s still very telling, but they way they"ve gone after any posts of these videos now is purely Orwellian.]

Paul Joseph Watson: A scene depicting runners at the Boston Marathon being killed and another depicting two bombs being detonated are SEPARATE SCENES but they are in the SAME EPISODE.

This episode of Family Guy was broadcast 3 weeks ago.

The media is labeling this whole issue a “hoax” and Seth McFarlane is calling anyone who talks about it “abhorrent,” when he’s the guy who made a cartoon making light of killing Boston Marathon runners and detonating bombs.

Hollywood Reporter article admits they are from the same episode. “Turban Cowboy,” which premiered in the U.S. on March 17, culminates with a scene depicting Peter Griffin accidentally blowing up a bridge by dialing a terrorist’s cell phone. But in the video making the rounds online, the cell phone scene is placed immediately after an unrelated moment in the episode when Bob Costas, voicing himself, asks Peter how he won the Boston Marathon. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live…

+++

ZenGardner.com

Just Wondering – Alternative News and Opinions

Clarification: Family Guy Boston Disaster Clips Were From Same Episode After All

Sharif Kouddous & Lina Attalah on Egypt"s Media, Sectarianism & State Violence from Mubarak to Morsi

Tweet

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to Egypt, where there are new revelations that members of the army participated in the forced disappearance, torture and killing of protesters during the 2011 uprising that led to the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak. The details are included in a report submitted to President Mohamed Morsi by his own hand-picked committee. The report is not yet public, but The Guardian obtained a copy of a chapter that examines the crimes against civilians, beginning with the army’s first deployment to the streets. More than a thousand people went missing during the 18 days of the revolution. Many later turned up in Egypt’s morgues, either shot or bearing signs of torture. Despite the allegations, President Morsi has declined to prosecute any officers since he assumed power from the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces after his election in June. But the leaked chapter recommends that he investigate the highest ranks of the military to determine who was responsible.

AMY GOODMAN: This comes as Mubarak and his former interior minister, Habib al-Adly, are set to return to court Saturday to face charges that they were responsible for killing protesters during the uprising.

For more, we’re joined by Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Democracy Now! correspondent, fellow at the Nation Institute. He’s usually based in Cairo but happily joins us here in our New York studio, along with Lina Attalah, chief editor of Egypt Independent, a Cairo-based English-language newspaper and website.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Sharif, talk about this explosive new report.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, it’s an interesting report. The most explosive part of it is that it was conducted by a fact-finding commission that was handpicked by the president himself. Many local Egyptian human rights groups have long documented abuses by the army. These abuses were also broadcast internationally when we had things like forced so-called virginity tests on March 9th; protesters arrested in Tahrir; perhaps one of the bloodiest incidents in the past two years, the killing of 27 people, mostly Coptic Christian demonstrators, in downtown Cairo on October 9th; and, of course, the putting of 12,000 civilians on military trial, more than Mubarak’s three decades in power. So, military abuses have been long known in Egypt. What is significant is that this is a commission handpicked by Morsi, and it puts pressure on the government to put the army officers on trial.

However, the Constitution that we have in Egypt, that was drafted by a body dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies and passed in a controversial referendum, ensures that the military can only be tried in a military tribunal. Only army members—army members can only be put on trial by military tribunal, which, you know, finding justice in that system will be very, very difficult.

And also, this comes in the wake of another leak of the same report last month to the Associated Press that found that police in Egypt killed nearly all of the 900 protesters that were killed in the 18-day uprising. Again, this is not news to Egyptians, who saw with their eyes police killing people. But this is evidence that—and puts pressure on the government and the prosecutor general to hold those accountable who committed these crimes and to stop this lack of justice and continuation of impunity in Egypt for these crimes.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But what does the Constitution say about the police, as distinct from the military? Are they also—are they also subject to civilian courts or military courts?

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: They’re—civilian courts. And over the past two years, hundreds of police officers have been acquitted by this court system that has completely failed to hold anybody accountable. So, you know, the Constitution gave the military everything it wanted and more. And one of those was that its members would only be tried in a military tribunal.

AMY GOODMAN: According to the leaked report, investigators found members of the armed forces detained a number of civilians at a checkpoint outside Cairo who have not been seen again. It said, quote, “The committee found that a number of citizens died during their detention by the armed forces and that they were buried in indigent graves, as they were considered unidentified.” The report added authorities did not investigate, despite evidence of injuries and severe torture. Lina Attalah, can you talk more about that?

LINA ATTALAH: Like Sharif said, we are not surprised by these results, although these results, with the level of detail they offer, they present important corroborative evidence that implicate the army in the killing of protesters during the revolution. And this changes the dominant narrative that basically the army has protected the revolution and if it wasn’t for the army intervention it would have been a bloodbath back on 28 January, 2011. So this is very important at a time when the political situation in Egypt is very unstable, and there is a lot of talk about the potential return of the army in order to solve the current political stalemate. If anything, it reminds people that the military rule is as problematic as the current Islamist regime, and it also brings to all our attention the very critical issue of impunity.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Lina, when you talk about the continuing unstable situation, I’d like to ask you about this whole issue of sectarian violence, of the increasing violence between Coptic Christians and Muslims, and how that is affecting the general democracy movement in Egypt.

LINA ATTALAH: So, we have seen in the last few days another wave of violence against Christians in a small village outside of Cairo. And we’ve seen also that in the aftermath of this violence, during the funeral, the Coptic cathedral in Cairo, which is an important symbol of Christian faith, has also been attacked during the funeral, which is—which is a grave violation. If anything, it tells us that the current regime, like the previous one, acts with a lot of carelessness and nonchalance towards the question of sectarianism that is extremely prevalent in Cairo, in Egypt, and that is both representative of a societal problem but also further fueled by the state not acting responsibly in bringing those responsible to justice.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And also, just to add to that, sectarianism is a problem, a longstanding problem, in Egypt that’s regularly been swept under the carpet by regimes, successive regimes, saying this is—these are isolated incidents by outside forces seeking to destabilize the country, and not acknowledging this problem. And with the current regime, you know, there’s been members of the Muslim Brotherhood that have taken to the airwaves and used sectarian language that helps create this environment where this kind of violence can happen. Mohamed el-Beltagy, who is a leading Brotherhood member, who was seen for years as a reformist member of the group, in November, when there were clashes—or, sorry, in December, when there were clashes at the presidential palace, said that, you know, over 60 percent of the people protesting the president were Christian. The online—Ikhwanweb, which is the online site for the Muslim Brotherhood, has regularly accused Christians of trying to sabotage elections and things of this nature. So, it’s this kind of language that has helped to foment this violence, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: On Wednesday, the Egyptian President Morsi withdrew complaints against several journalists who were under investigation for allegedly insulting him and the Muslim faith. But the popular television satirist, the comedian Bassem Youssef, is among those still facing charges. This is a clip of Youssef speaking last month on his weekly show.

BASSEM YOUSSEF: [translated] What do have planned for us, Mr. President? And I’d also like to ask him on the renaissance program. I do not have any personal vendettas against anyone; on the contrary, it would be an honor for me to host any of those I criticize. It would be a success for myself and also a success for freedom of thought and expression, as it would send a message to the people that they, the Muslim Brotherhood, are in power, they accept criticism. And once they leave the show, I still criticize them. This happens all over the world, so why can’t it be for us?

AMY GOODMAN: That was the popular Egyptian television satirist Bassem Youssef. The U.S. says the charges come as Egypt has failed to investigate cases of extreme police brutality against protesters while continuing its crackdown on freedom of expression. We’re going to turn right now to Jon Stewart, yes, comedian Jon Stewart here in the United States, who was defending Bassem Youssef earlier this month on The Daily Show. This is Jon Stewart addressing Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

JON STEWART: Come on! Charging Bassem Youssef with insulting Egypt and Islam? I know Bassem. Bassem is my friend, my brother. There are two things he loves in this world with all his heart: Egypt and Islam—and his family. Three things. There’s three—and what is that flat bread with the cheese? It’s tart. It’s like a white—it’s not baba ganoush. It’s like—there’s four things that he loves. My point is, Bassem Youssef loves Egypt so much, he chooses to live there, even though some crazy guy is threatening to arrest him. Oh, right. But by the way, without Bassem and all those journalists and bloggers and brave protesters who took to Tahrir Square to voice dissent, you, President Morsi, would not be in a position to repress them. For someone who spent time in jail yourself—for someone—for someone who spent time in jail yourself, under Mubarak, you seem awfully eager to send other people there for the same non-crimes. And just like you, they will only emerge from prison stronger and more determined. So, all sending comedians and bloggers to prison accomplishes is lowering the quality of prison yard athletics.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Jon Stewart talking about Bassem Youssef. The significance of Youssef?

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, he’s got one of the most popular programs in Egypt and uses satire, much like Jon Stewart does on The Daily Show, to lampoon and to make fun of the current regime, mostly, the Islamist president. And this is something very hard to retaliate against—humor. It’s a weapon that’s been used by many people in Egypt to challenge the regime. And we saw, you know, these charges of insulting the president and—that have been used against many journalists and activists, as well, to clamp down on dissent. Bassem Youssef is someone who’s known around the world—Jon Stewart knows him—and he’s someone probably who will not be jailed because of his high profile. But there’s many activists in Egypt who are facing serious jail time. One of them is Hassan Mustafa, an activist in Alexandria who received a two-year jail sentence for allegedly slapping a prosecutor. And many eyewitnesses around them deny those charges, as does he. And, of course, many, many people arrested, killed during demonstrations, who don’t get this kind of—this coverage. So, you know, this is—again, Stewart put it very well, saying that these are the people—many of them elected Morsi against his opponent, Ahmed Shafik, who represented the military establishment and a return to the former regime, and now he’s cracking down on them. So…

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Lina, you also edit a newspaper and an online news site. What is life like in Egypt today for the press compared to under Mubarak? And what are the challenges that you’re facing right now in being able to get accurate news and information out to the people?

LINA ATTALAH: Well, while of course currently we’re enjoying a dynamic political scene that is making us write and report about Egypt in many more creative ways than before, one of the problems, besides of course the political and legislative limitations that are cast upon the media landscape in Egypt, there are also a lot of economic—economic challenges that also, in a way, mask a deeper political problem. So, a lot of the media in Egypt, if not controlled by the state, are controlled by business conglomerates who do not have real business development models for our newspapers and our television channels, and they highly depend on the subsidization of these businessmen. So the moment a businessman loses interest in a particular medium, no matter how successful this medium has become, what happens is that it faces the threat of closure, which is actually the story of Egypt Independent, for which I’m working and which we are working hard on trying to save, because we think we present a very important narrative both in Egypt and outside of Egypt about the situation that cannot otherwise be provided by only international journalists, for example.

AMY GOODMAN: How can you save it?

LINA ATTALAH: We are basically trying to develop an alternative business model, which basically entices a lot of our readers to contribute to the survival of the paper through a subscription drive. And this is also to open up a culture whereby readers should share the ownership of their media and not just leave them to the subsidization and the control of the businessmen. And in a way, of course, Democracy Now! is an inspiration for us.

AMY GOODMAN: And what is it for you as a woman? How is it for you to report in Egypt? And the climate for women overall?

LINA ATTALAH: It has been, of course, challenging, as much as it has been for men, particularly covering clashes, covering incidents of violence, where, you know, there is much chaos and there is not much security in there. So we basically, all of us, endanger ourselves for the sake of getting the story out. There are, of course, some additional threats for women with regards to mounting reports about sexual violence, particularly around Tahrir Square. But we also should remember that the question of sexual violence has been there for a longer time and should be addressed both politically and socially. But in general, I would say it has been as challenging as it has been for men to cover the Egypt story with honesty.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Sharif, we just have about a minute, but I wanted to ask you about the impact of outside forces on the Egyptian economy. There was a recent controversy over an IMF loan, and then Qatar and Libya have suddenly come in to offer aid to Egypt. What’s the impact of these outside players on Egypt’s situation?

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: That’s right. Egypt’s economic crisis centers largely around foreign currency reserves, of which we’ve lost about 20 billion in trying to support the pound. And this is a real crisis. And so, Qatar has stepped in with $ 5 billion and just a couple of days ago agreed to inject an additional $ 3 billion into the economy. Libya, a country which went through a civil war, is giving Egypt $ 2 billion. Saudi Arabia has given one billion. Turkey has given two billion. Without these—this kind of—these cash injections, Egypt would have gone under. And so, we’re still under the—going for these negotiations for a $ 4.8 billion IMF loan, which would entail a government reform package that would include austerity measures, subsidy cuts, tax hikes, which continue many of the same neoliberal economic policies that stirred up this revolt in the first place.

And let me just add quickly, on Egypt Independent, the importance of an outlet like this is that local Egyptian journalists, who have the knowledge of their country, can tell their story to the world through outlets like Egypt Independent, instead of being fixers for Western journalists and having that narrative translated through someone else. So, this is the importance of an outlet like that.

AMY GOODMAN: Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Democracy Now! correspondent, and Lina Attalah, chief editor of the Egypt Independent . In fact, we’re going to have a conversation Friday night at New York University Cantor Film Center at 6:00. I’ll be moderating. Check out our website at democracynow.org. And Democracy Now! has a job opening for an annual giving manager.

Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin WordPress | Android Forums | WordPress Tutorials
Democracy Now!

Sharif Kouddous & Lina Attalah on Egypt"s Media, Sectarianism & State Violence from Mubarak to Morsi

Sharif Kouddous & Lina Attalah on Egypt"s Media, Sectarianism & State Violence from Mubarak to Morsi

Tweet

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to Egypt, where there are new revelations that members of the army participated in the forced disappearance, torture and killing of protesters during the 2011 uprising that led to the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak. The details are included in a report submitted to President Mohamed Morsi by his own hand-picked committee. The report is not yet public, but The Guardian obtained a copy of a chapter that examines the crimes against civilians, beginning with the army’s first deployment to the streets. More than a thousand people went missing during the 18 days of the revolution. Many later turned up in Egypt’s morgues, either shot or bearing signs of torture. Despite the allegations, President Morsi has declined to prosecute any officers since he assumed power from the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces after his election in June. But the leaked chapter recommends that he investigate the highest ranks of the military to determine who was responsible.

AMY GOODMAN: This comes as Mubarak and his former interior minister, Habib al-Adly, are set to return to court Saturday to face charges that they were responsible for killing protesters during the uprising.

For more, we’re joined by Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Democracy Now! correspondent, fellow at the Nation Institute. He’s usually based in Cairo but happily joins us here in our New York studio, along with Lina Attalah, chief editor of Egypt Independent, a Cairo-based English-language newspaper and website.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Sharif, talk about this explosive new report.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, it’s an interesting report. The most explosive part of it is that it was conducted by a fact-finding commission that was handpicked by the president himself. Many local Egyptian human rights groups have long documented abuses by the army. These abuses were also broadcast internationally when we had things like forced so-called virginity tests on March 9th; protesters arrested in Tahrir; perhaps one of the bloodiest incidents in the past two years, the killing of 27 people, mostly Coptic Christian demonstrators, in downtown Cairo on October 9th; and, of course, the putting of 12,000 civilians on military trial, more than Mubarak’s three decades in power. So, military abuses have been long known in Egypt. What is significant is that this is a commission handpicked by Morsi, and it puts pressure on the government to put the army officers on trial.

However, the Constitution that we have in Egypt, that was drafted by a body dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies and passed in a controversial referendum, ensures that the military can only be tried in a military tribunal. Only army members—army members can only be put on trial by military tribunal, which, you know, finding justice in that system will be very, very difficult.

And also, this comes in the wake of another leak of the same report last month to the Associated Press that found that police in Egypt killed nearly all of the 900 protesters that were killed in the 18-day uprising. Again, this is not news to Egyptians, who saw with their eyes police killing people. But this is evidence that—and puts pressure on the government and the prosecutor general to hold those accountable who committed these crimes and to stop this lack of justice and continuation of impunity in Egypt for these crimes.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But what does the Constitution say about the police, as distinct from the military? Are they also—are they also subject to civilian courts or military courts?

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: They’re—civilian courts. And over the past two years, hundreds of police officers have been acquitted by this court system that has completely failed to hold anybody accountable. So, you know, the Constitution gave the military everything it wanted and more. And one of those was that its members would only be tried in a military tribunal.

AMY GOODMAN: According to the leaked report, investigators found members of the armed forces detained a number of civilians at a checkpoint outside Cairo who have not been seen again. It said, quote, “The committee found that a number of citizens died during their detention by the armed forces and that they were buried in indigent graves, as they were considered unidentified.” The report added authorities did not investigate, despite evidence of injuries and severe torture. Lina Attalah, can you talk more about that?

LINA ATTALAH: Like Sharif said, we are not surprised by these results, although these results, with the level of detail they offer, they present important corroborative evidence that implicate the army in the killing of protesters during the revolution. And this changes the dominant narrative that basically the army has protected the revolution and if it wasn’t for the army intervention it would have been a bloodbath back on 28 January, 2011. So this is very important at a time when the political situation in Egypt is very unstable, and there is a lot of talk about the potential return of the army in order to solve the current political stalemate. If anything, it reminds people that the military rule is as problematic as the current Islamist regime, and it also brings to all our attention the very critical issue of impunity.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Lina, when you talk about the continuing unstable situation, I’d like to ask you about this whole issue of sectarian violence, of the increasing violence between Coptic Christians and Muslims, and how that is affecting the general democracy movement in Egypt.

LINA ATTALAH: So, we have seen in the last few days another wave of violence against Christians in a small village outside of Cairo. And we’ve seen also that in the aftermath of this violence, during the funeral, the Coptic cathedral in Cairo, which is an important symbol of Christian faith, has also been attacked during the funeral, which is—which is a grave violation. If anything, it tells us that the current regime, like the previous one, acts with a lot of carelessness and nonchalance towards the question of sectarianism that is extremely prevalent in Cairo, in Egypt, and that is both representative of a societal problem but also further fueled by the state not acting responsibly in bringing those responsible to justice.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And also, just to add to that, sectarianism is a problem, a longstanding problem, in Egypt that’s regularly been swept under the carpet by regimes, successive regimes, saying this is—these are isolated incidents by outside forces seeking to destabilize the country, and not acknowledging this problem. And with the current regime, you know, there’s been members of the Muslim Brotherhood that have taken to the airwaves and used sectarian language that helps create this environment where this kind of violence can happen. Mohamed el-Beltagy, who is a leading Brotherhood member, who was seen for years as a reformist member of the group, in November, when there were clashes—or, sorry, in December, when there were clashes at the presidential palace, said that, you know, over 60 percent of the people protesting the president were Christian. The online—Ikhwanweb, which is the online site for the Muslim Brotherhood, has regularly accused Christians of trying to sabotage elections and things of this nature. So, it’s this kind of language that has helped to foment this violence, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: On Wednesday, the Egyptian President Morsi withdrew complaints against several journalists who were under investigation for allegedly insulting him and the Muslim faith. But the popular television satirist, the comedian Bassem Youssef, is among those still facing charges. This is a clip of Youssef speaking last month on his weekly show.

BASSEM YOUSSEF: [translated] What do have planned for us, Mr. President? And I’d also like to ask him on the renaissance program. I do not have any personal vendettas against anyone; on the contrary, it would be an honor for me to host any of those I criticize. It would be a success for myself and also a success for freedom of thought and expression, as it would send a message to the people that they, the Muslim Brotherhood, are in power, they accept criticism. And once they leave the show, I still criticize them. This happens all over the world, so why can’t it be for us?

AMY GOODMAN: That was the popular Egyptian television satirist Bassem Youssef. The U.S. says the charges come as Egypt has failed to investigate cases of extreme police brutality against protesters while continuing its crackdown on freedom of expression. We’re going to turn right now to Jon Stewart, yes, comedian Jon Stewart here in the United States, who was defending Bassem Youssef earlier this month on The Daily Show. This is Jon Stewart addressing Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

JON STEWART: Come on! Charging Bassem Youssef with insulting Egypt and Islam? I know Bassem. Bassem is my friend, my brother. There are two things he loves in this world with all his heart: Egypt and Islam—and his family. Three things. There’s three—and what is that flat bread with the cheese? It’s tart. It’s like a white—it’s not baba ganoush. It’s like—there’s four things that he loves. My point is, Bassem Youssef loves Egypt so much, he chooses to live there, even though some crazy guy is threatening to arrest him. Oh, right. But by the way, without Bassem and all those journalists and bloggers and brave protesters who took to Tahrir Square to voice dissent, you, President Morsi, would not be in a position to repress them. For someone who spent time in jail yourself—for someone—for someone who spent time in jail yourself, under Mubarak, you seem awfully eager to send other people there for the same non-crimes. And just like you, they will only emerge from prison stronger and more determined. So, all sending comedians and bloggers to prison accomplishes is lowering the quality of prison yard athletics.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Jon Stewart talking about Bassem Youssef. The significance of Youssef?

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, he’s got one of the most popular programs in Egypt and uses satire, much like Jon Stewart does on The Daily Show, to lampoon and to make fun of the current regime, mostly, the Islamist president. And this is something very hard to retaliate against—humor. It’s a weapon that’s been used by many people in Egypt to challenge the regime. And we saw, you know, these charges of insulting the president and—that have been used against many journalists and activists, as well, to clamp down on dissent. Bassem Youssef is someone who’s known around the world—Jon Stewart knows him—and he’s someone probably who will not be jailed because of his high profile. But there’s many activists in Egypt who are facing serious jail time. One of them is Hassan Mustafa, an activist in Alexandria who received a two-year jail sentence for allegedly slapping a prosecutor. And many eyewitnesses around them deny those charges, as does he. And, of course, many, many people arrested, killed during demonstrations, who don’t get this kind of—this coverage. So, you know, this is—again, Stewart put it very well, saying that these are the people—many of them elected Morsi against his opponent, Ahmed Shafik, who represented the military establishment and a return to the former regime, and now he’s cracking down on them. So…

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Lina, you also edit a newspaper and an online news site. What is life like in Egypt today for the press compared to under Mubarak? And what are the challenges that you’re facing right now in being able to get accurate news and information out to the people?

LINA ATTALAH: Well, while of course currently we’re enjoying a dynamic political scene that is making us write and report about Egypt in many more creative ways than before, one of the problems, besides of course the political and legislative limitations that are cast upon the media landscape in Egypt, there are also a lot of economic—economic challenges that also, in a way, mask a deeper political problem. So, a lot of the media in Egypt, if not controlled by the state, are controlled by business conglomerates who do not have real business development models for our newspapers and our television channels, and they highly depend on the subsidization of these businessmen. So the moment a businessman loses interest in a particular medium, no matter how successful this medium has become, what happens is that it faces the threat of closure, which is actually the story of Egypt Independent, for which I’m working and which we are working hard on trying to save, because we think we present a very important narrative both in Egypt and outside of Egypt about the situation that cannot otherwise be provided by only international journalists, for example.

AMY GOODMAN: How can you save it?

LINA ATTALAH: We are basically trying to develop an alternative business model, which basically entices a lot of our readers to contribute to the survival of the paper through a subscription drive. And this is also to open up a culture whereby readers should share the ownership of their media and not just leave them to the subsidization and the control of the businessmen. And in a way, of course, Democracy Now! is an inspiration for us.

AMY GOODMAN: And what is it for you as a woman? How is it for you to report in Egypt? And the climate for women overall?

LINA ATTALAH: It has been, of course, challenging, as much as it has been for men, particularly covering clashes, covering incidents of violence, where, you know, there is much chaos and there is not much security in there. So we basically, all of us, endanger ourselves for the sake of getting the story out. There are, of course, some additional threats for women with regards to mounting reports about sexual violence, particularly around Tahrir Square. But we also should remember that the question of sexual violence has been there for a longer time and should be addressed both politically and socially. But in general, I would say it has been as challenging as it has been for men to cover the Egypt story with honesty.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Sharif, we just have about a minute, but I wanted to ask you about the impact of outside forces on the Egyptian economy. There was a recent controversy over an IMF loan, and then Qatar and Libya have suddenly come in to offer aid to Egypt. What’s the impact of these outside players on Egypt’s situation?

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: That’s right. Egypt’s economic crisis centers largely around foreign currency reserves, of which we’ve lost about 20 billion in trying to support the pound. And this is a real crisis. And so, Qatar has stepped in with $ 5 billion and just a couple of days ago agreed to inject an additional $ 3 billion into the economy. Libya, a country which went through a civil war, is giving Egypt $ 2 billion. Saudi Arabia has given one billion. Turkey has given two billion. Without these—this kind of—these cash injections, Egypt would have gone under. And so, we’re still under the—going for these negotiations for a $ 4.8 billion IMF loan, which would entail a government reform package that would include austerity measures, subsidy cuts, tax hikes, which continue many of the same neoliberal economic policies that stirred up this revolt in the first place.

And let me just add quickly, on Egypt Independent, the importance of an outlet like this is that local Egyptian journalists, who have the knowledge of their country, can tell their story to the world through outlets like Egypt Independent, instead of being fixers for Western journalists and having that narrative translated through someone else. So, this is the importance of an outlet like that.

AMY GOODMAN: Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Democracy Now! correspondent, and Lina Attalah, chief editor of the Egypt Independent . In fact, we’re going to have a conversation Friday night at New York University Cantor Film Center at 6:00. I’ll be moderating. Check out our website at democracynow.org. And Democracy Now! has a job opening for an annual giving manager.

Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin WordPress | Android Forums | WordPress Tutorials
Democracy Now!

Sharif Kouddous & Lina Attalah on Egypt"s Media, Sectarianism & State Violence from Mubarak to Morsi

LiberalViewer Wednesday LIVE Episode 7 from April 10 at 4:30 pm Pacific

Tweet

Sharif Kouddous & Lina Attalah on Egypt"s Media, Sectarianism & State Violence from Mubarak to Morsi

Tweet

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to Egypt, where there are new revelations that members of the army participated in the forced disappearance, torture and killing of protesters during the 2011 uprising that led to the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak. The details are included in a report submitted to President Mohamed Morsi by his own hand-picked committee. The report is not yet public, but The Guardian obtained a copy of a chapter that examines the crimes against civilians, beginning with the army’s first deployment to the streets. More than a thousand people went missing during the 18 days of the revolution. Many later turned up in Egypt’s morgues, either shot or bearing signs of torture. Despite the allegations, President Morsi has declined to prosecute any officers since he assumed power from the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces after his election in June. But the leaked chapter recommends that he investigate the highest ranks of the military to determine who was responsible.

AMY GOODMAN: This comes as Mubarak and his former interior minister, Habib al-Adly, are set to return to court Saturday to face charges that they were responsible for killing protesters during the uprising.

For more, we’re joined by Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Democracy Now! correspondent, fellow at the Nation Institute. He’s usually based in Cairo but happily joins us here in our New York studio, along with Lina Attalah, chief editor of Egypt Independent, a Cairo-based English-language newspaper and website.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Sharif, talk about this explosive new report.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, it’s an interesting report. The most explosive part of it is that it was conducted by a fact-finding commission that was handpicked by the president himself. Many local Egyptian human rights groups have long documented abuses by the army. These abuses were also broadcast internationally when we had things like forced so-called virginity tests on March 9th; protesters arrested in Tahrir; perhaps one of the bloodiest incidents in the past two years, the killing of 27 people, mostly Coptic Christian demonstrators, in downtown Cairo on October 9th; and, of course, the putting of 12,000 civilians on military trial, more than Mubarak’s three decades in power. So, military abuses have been long known in Egypt. What is significant is that this is a commission handpicked by Morsi, and it puts pressure on the government to put the army officers on trial.

However, the Constitution that we have in Egypt, that was drafted by a body dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies and passed in a controversial referendum, ensures that the military can only be tried in a military tribunal. Only army members—army members can only be put on trial by military tribunal, which, you know, finding justice in that system will be very, very difficult.

And also, this comes in the wake of another leak of the same report last month to the Associated Press that found that police in Egypt killed nearly all of the 900 protesters that were killed in the 18-day uprising. Again, this is not news to Egyptians, who saw with their eyes police killing people. But this is evidence that—and puts pressure on the government and the prosecutor general to hold those accountable who committed these crimes and to stop this lack of justice and continuation of impunity in Egypt for these crimes.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But what does the Constitution say about the police, as distinct from the military? Are they also—are they also subject to civilian courts or military courts?

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: They’re—civilian courts. And over the past two years, hundreds of police officers have been acquitted by this court system that has completely failed to hold anybody accountable. So, you know, the Constitution gave the military everything it wanted and more. And one of those was that its members would only be tried in a military tribunal.

AMY GOODMAN: According to the leaked report, investigators found members of the armed forces detained a number of civilians at a checkpoint outside Cairo who have not been seen again. It said, quote, “The committee found that a number of citizens died during their detention by the armed forces and that they were buried in indigent graves, as they were considered unidentified.” The report added authorities did not investigate, despite evidence of injuries and severe torture. Lina Attalah, can you talk more about that?

LINA ATTALAH: Like Sharif said, we are not surprised by these results, although these results, with the level of detail they offer, they present important corroborative evidence that implicate the army in the killing of protesters during the revolution. And this changes the dominant narrative that basically the army has protected the revolution and if it wasn’t for the army intervention it would have been a bloodbath back on 28 January, 2011. So this is very important at a time when the political situation in Egypt is very unstable, and there is a lot of talk about the potential return of the army in order to solve the current political stalemate. If anything, it reminds people that the military rule is as problematic as the current Islamist regime, and it also brings to all our attention the very critical issue of impunity.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Lina, when you talk about the continuing unstable situation, I’d like to ask you about this whole issue of sectarian violence, of the increasing violence between Coptic Christians and Muslims, and how that is affecting the general democracy movement in Egypt.

LINA ATTALAH: So, we have seen in the last few days another wave of violence against Christians in a small village outside of Cairo. And we’ve seen also that in the aftermath of this violence, during the funeral, the Coptic cathedral in Cairo, which is an important symbol of Christian faith, has also been attacked during the funeral, which is—which is a grave violation. If anything, it tells us that the current regime, like the previous one, acts with a lot of carelessness and nonchalance towards the question of sectarianism that is extremely prevalent in Cairo, in Egypt, and that is both representative of a societal problem but also further fueled by the state not acting responsibly in bringing those responsible to justice.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And also, just to add to that, sectarianism is a problem, a longstanding problem, in Egypt that’s regularly been swept under the carpet by regimes, successive regimes, saying this is—these are isolated incidents by outside forces seeking to destabilize the country, and not acknowledging this problem. And with the current regime, you know, there’s been members of the Muslim Brotherhood that have taken to the airwaves and used sectarian language that helps create this environment where this kind of violence can happen. Mohamed el-Beltagy, who is a leading Brotherhood member, who was seen for years as a reformist member of the group, in November, when there were clashes—or, sorry, in December, when there were clashes at the presidential palace, said that, you know, over 60 percent of the people protesting the president were Christian. The online—Ikhwanweb, which is the online site for the Muslim Brotherhood, has regularly accused Christians of trying to sabotage elections and things of this nature. So, it’s this kind of language that has helped to foment this violence, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: On Wednesday, the Egyptian President Morsi withdrew complaints against several journalists who were under investigation for allegedly insulting him and the Muslim faith. But the popular television satirist, the comedian Bassem Youssef, is among those still facing charges. This is a clip of Youssef speaking last month on his weekly show.

BASSEM YOUSSEF: [translated] What do have planned for us, Mr. President? And I’d also like to ask him on the renaissance program. I do not have any personal vendettas against anyone; on the contrary, it would be an honor for me to host any of those I criticize. It would be a success for myself and also a success for freedom of thought and expression, as it would send a message to the people that they, the Muslim Brotherhood, are in power, they accept criticism. And once they leave the show, I still criticize them. This happens all over the world, so why can’t it be for us?

AMY GOODMAN: That was the popular Egyptian television satirist Bassem Youssef. The U.S. says the charges come as Egypt has failed to investigate cases of extreme police brutality against protesters while continuing its crackdown on freedom of expression. We’re going to turn right now to Jon Stewart, yes, comedian Jon Stewart here in the United States, who was defending Bassem Youssef earlier this month on The Daily Show. This is Jon Stewart addressing Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

JON STEWART: Come on! Charging Bassem Youssef with insulting Egypt and Islam? I know Bassem. Bassem is my friend, my brother. There are two things he loves in this world with all his heart: Egypt and Islam—and his family. Three things. There’s three—and what is that flat bread with the cheese? It’s tart. It’s like a white—it’s not baba ganoush. It’s like—there’s four things that he loves. My point is, Bassem Youssef loves Egypt so much, he chooses to live there, even though some crazy guy is threatening to arrest him. Oh, right. But by the way, without Bassem and all those journalists and bloggers and brave protesters who took to Tahrir Square to voice dissent, you, President Morsi, would not be in a position to repress them. For someone who spent time in jail yourself—for someone—for someone who spent time in jail yourself, under Mubarak, you seem awfully eager to send other people there for the same non-crimes. And just like you, they will only emerge from prison stronger and more determined. So, all sending comedians and bloggers to prison accomplishes is lowering the quality of prison yard athletics.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Jon Stewart talking about Bassem Youssef. The significance of Youssef?

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Well, he’s got one of the most popular programs in Egypt and uses satire, much like Jon Stewart does on The Daily Show, to lampoon and to make fun of the current regime, mostly, the Islamist president. And this is something very hard to retaliate against—humor. It’s a weapon that’s been used by many people in Egypt to challenge the regime. And we saw, you know, these charges of insulting the president and—that have been used against many journalists and activists, as well, to clamp down on dissent. Bassem Youssef is someone who’s known around the world—Jon Stewart knows him—and he’s someone probably who will not be jailed because of his high profile. But there’s many activists in Egypt who are facing serious jail time. One of them is Hassan Mustafa, an activist in Alexandria who received a two-year jail sentence for allegedly slapping a prosecutor. And many eyewitnesses around them deny those charges, as does he. And, of course, many, many people arrested, killed during demonstrations, who don’t get this kind of—this coverage. So, you know, this is—again, Stewart put it very well, saying that these are the people—many of them elected Morsi against his opponent, Ahmed Shafik, who represented the military establishment and a return to the former regime, and now he’s cracking down on them. So…

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Lina, you also edit a newspaper and an online news site. What is life like in Egypt today for the press compared to under Mubarak? And what are the challenges that you’re facing right now in being able to get accurate news and information out to the people?

LINA ATTALAH: Well, while of course currently we’re enjoying a dynamic political scene that is making us write and report about Egypt in many more creative ways than before, one of the problems, besides of course the political and legislative limitations that are cast upon the media landscape in Egypt, there are also a lot of economic—economic challenges that also, in a way, mask a deeper political problem. So, a lot of the media in Egypt, if not controlled by the state, are controlled by business conglomerates who do not have real business development models for our newspapers and our television channels, and they highly depend on the subsidization of these businessmen. So the moment a businessman loses interest in a particular medium, no matter how successful this medium has become, what happens is that it faces the threat of closure, which is actually the story of Egypt Independent, for which I’m working and which we are working hard on trying to save, because we think we present a very important narrative both in Egypt and outside of Egypt about the situation that cannot otherwise be provided by only international journalists, for example.

AMY GOODMAN: How can you save it?

LINA ATTALAH: We are basically trying to develop an alternative business model, which basically entices a lot of our readers to contribute to the survival of the paper through a subscription drive. And this is also to open up a culture whereby readers should share the ownership of their media and not just leave them to the subsidization and the control of the businessmen. And in a way, of course, Democracy Now! is an inspiration for us.

AMY GOODMAN: And what is it for you as a woman? How is it for you to report in Egypt? And the climate for women overall?

LINA ATTALAH: It has been, of course, challenging, as much as it has been for men, particularly covering clashes, covering incidents of violence, where, you know, there is much chaos and there is not much security in there. So we basically, all of us, endanger ourselves for the sake of getting the story out. There are, of course, some additional threats for women with regards to mounting reports about sexual violence, particularly around Tahrir Square. But we also should remember that the question of sexual violence has been there for a longer time and should be addressed both politically and socially. But in general, I would say it has been as challenging as it has been for men to cover the Egypt story with honesty.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Sharif, we just have about a minute, but I wanted to ask you about the impact of outside forces on the Egyptian economy. There was a recent controversy over an IMF loan, and then Qatar and Libya have suddenly come in to offer aid to Egypt. What’s the impact of these outside players on Egypt’s situation?

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: That’s right. Egypt’s economic crisis centers largely around foreign currency reserves, of which we’ve lost about 20 billion in trying to support the pound. And this is a real crisis. And so, Qatar has stepped in with $ 5 billion and just a couple of days ago agreed to inject an additional $ 3 billion into the economy. Libya, a country which went through a civil war, is giving Egypt $ 2 billion. Saudi Arabia has given one billion. Turkey has given two billion. Without these—this kind of—these cash injections, Egypt would have gone under. And so, we’re still under the—going for these negotiations for a $ 4.8 billion IMF loan, which would entail a government reform package that would include austerity measures, subsidy cuts, tax hikes, which continue many of the same neoliberal economic policies that stirred up this revolt in the first place.

And let me just add quickly, on Egypt Independent, the importance of an outlet like this is that local Egyptian journalists, who have the knowledge of their country, can tell their story to the world through outlets like Egypt Independent, instead of being fixers for Western journalists and having that narrative translated through someone else. So, this is the importance of an outlet like that.

AMY GOODMAN: Sharif Abdel Kouddous, Democracy Now! correspondent, and Lina Attalah, chief editor of the Egypt Independent . In fact, we’re going to have a conversation Friday night at New York University Cantor Film Center at 6:00. I’ll be moderating. Check out our website at democracynow.org. And Democracy Now! has a job opening for an annual giving manager.

Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | Amazon Plugin WordPress | Android Forums | WordPress Tutorials
Democracy Now!

Sharif Kouddous & Lina Attalah on Egypt"s Media, Sectarianism & State Violence from Mubarak to Morsi