Egyptian Interim Government Effectively Has Ended The Revolution

(WINDSOR, N.H.) - New York Times writer, Liz Alderman reported, May 27, 2011, that the leaders of the Group of 8 had agreed to pledge large sums of capital to “bolster Arab Democracy”. These leaders, she wrote, expressed concern that the democracy movement in the Arab world could be “hijacked” by Islamic “radicals” should the Group not act to help stabilize the economies of both Egypt and Tunisia.

She was unable to report a final sum, however, mentioned that it was inferred as much as $20 billion, and possibly double that (according to Host, President Nicholas Sarkozy of France) amount, might find its way to these nations. It was not specified how much each country would offer, how the sums would be determined and disbursed between the nations and precisely what restrictions might be placed upon the use of these funds.

Wisely, Liz reported an oft overlooked fact that the Group has, in the past, made pledges that were never fulfilled. (See the article at http://ie.p1.sl.pt).

As is most typical in the rhetoric of the BIG 8, such offerings are made with the intentions of fostering employment where numbers are dramatically high for out of work youth and displaced older workers and opening markets which ostensibly will improve the economic climate of the receivers. In practice, history shows that the monies lent to impoverished or at risk nations typically winds up in the hands of large corporations who utilize those funds to rob the gifted nations of their resources, further enslave their workers and create greater poverty and national calamity.

Further, the suggestion of market creation falls under sadly ill-defined references to “Open Markets” which again, in practice, are markets intended solely to benefit those corporations who, it should also be noted, usually are granted exceptions and exemptions from taxes and other restrictions (such as air and water protections) not granted to local businesses. “Equal Opportunity” is also tossed into the soup, especially now in Muslim nations where the perception is that women are the ultimate underclass. International corporations have an entirely different perspective on “equal opportunity”. It amounts to equal enslavement, equal degradation and equal usurpation of individual liberty, life and happiness.

Besides the 8 represented nations, funds would be derived from infusions offered by the World Bank, IMF, and the European Investment Bank. Often packaged in such deals are deferments or forgiveness for previously existing and/or defaulted upon loans from these same organizations. In comparison to the actual economies of these countries, the amounts being dangled before them are relatively small. Natural concerns for nations undergoing regime changes, whether to some form of democracy or another “family operation”, are losses having already accrued or are projected through any perceived transition period. Often trade will take dramatic nosedives sufficient to force factory and bank closings, strikes will occur, tourist industries will take sizable hits and various forms of shortages in food and other commodities as well as inflation, foreclosure and bankruptcies will occur. Both Tunisia and Egypt are presently feeling most all the effects mentioned.

Instability, which is a natural beginning of any takeover and transition, are high priority concerns for investors which makes it difficult for newly emerging governments to acquire needed loans. Keenly aware, the BIG 8 and its economic partners, the IMF, et al, act fairly swiftly in preparing a shining carrot to offer the needy nations. Such seemingly tasty carrots, however, seldom, if ever, come without an equally distasteful stick threatening disbursement and use of any funds, if any at all, that might make its way to the nations.

Obviously, there are very legitimate concerns that any lending institution would consider in making a loan. In the case of nations undergoing the instability of transitions such as that faced by these two nations, obvious concerns of knowing who would be responsible for insuring the funds are properly administered is paramount.

History shows that the G8 and its cronies do not particularly like working directly with legitimate democracies. It is far easier to work with military dictatorships and royals who are more apt to make unilateral decisions with little down time wasted on parliamentary votes or Congressional approvals. Egypt is in a prime position, from the eyes of the G8 vultures as it has very recently disposed of a “royal” and was left in the interim hands of a military government.

It is a very sad situation to report that this government has succumbed to the baiting of the big banks and the G8. In its first move, the military agreed to accept the Muslim Brotherhood as a legitimate party. This sets up the stage for future elections with a high win potential as many in the Middle East have long been fed a perception of the brotherhood as a “radical” organization undesirable to the tyrant regimes of the region thus making them more palatable to the general population... The truth is something quite different. The video that follows this article explains this difference quite clearly. It also reiterates historical precedents of the IMF et al.

Secondly, the military leaders of Egypt agreed to accept an initial 3 billion dollar loan from IMF. These two conditions, now having been set in motion, effectively have doomed the Egyptian revolution and once again establishes a western noose around the necks of the Egyptian people. With more funding being offered, it is unlikely this situation will be easily reversed. A big question is whether or not Tunisia will soon follow.

Is this situation as hopeless as it may seem from this writing? This is difficult to answer. What options are left for the people of Egypt will depend entirely on the willingness of the revolution's full weight to educate itself about the Brotherhood and the IMF et al loans and set about locating strong opposition for the coming elections. If, and only if, they can find a strong enough candidate and bring the population behind him/her, can they overcome this terrible selling out of all their previous effort.

Please view this video of Stephen Lendemen and please follow me on Twitter @mdp4202

M. Dennis Paul, Ph.D. is a Counselor and Conflict Resolution Specialist/Consultant (Mediation/Arbitration/Facilitation) (20+ yrs).

He is the Creator of Thought Addiction programs (Lectures Seminars & Workshops) (Intensive 21 day Addiction Recovery Programs designed for Artists, Actors, Musicians & Industry Leaders) residing in New Hampshire (US). (The Website for M. Dennis Paul, Ph.D. is currently under reconstruction) Contact: mdp54@gsinet.net 1-603-478-1544