Indication of where Amre Moussa can be president

Yeah…about that.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Make sure you watch to the very end! See you all on the 25th.

On November 28th, millions of Egyptians (including those abroad) will queue up in front of local schools to take part in what seems to be the first free and fair elections in the nation’s history. Ballots will be counted in districts all over the republic to determine the country’s first batch of democratically elected members of parliament. Looks like the struggle is paying off after all.

That is why we need to boycott the upcoming elections.

Tantawi with Robert Gates in 2008

There are many reasons why I think that, just as March’s referendum was a vote for or against SCAF, boycotting in November’s elections is supporting the continuation of the revolution, and partaking, regardless of the chosen candidate/party, is opting for reform.

1. The people demand the downfall of the regime

   SCAF appear to have been in power since February 11th, but the army, as an entity, has enjoyed overwhelming power since the coup d’etat of 1952. in fact it has long been an economic giant. Whether it’s vast lands, factories in the different industries, man power forced to work at little or no cost, there’s plenty to prove that SCAF has enjoyed more than the average share of the power pie. More importantly, it has always been an integral part of the old regime. I won’t go into why I’m against SCAF, that’s beyond this argument.

   

   Military Mubarak. Photo by Hossam El Hamalawy

   The issue here is that SCAF is putting together this limited infrastructure of ‘democracy’ for us to play in. While we fight on whether we want Egypt to be secular or Islamist, SCAF is happy with the conditions that accompany the 1.3bn dollar package from the US. While we prepare for free and fair elections, SCAF detains activists to add them to their list of 12,000 civilians triad by the military.

   The fact of the matter is, taking part in the elections would be collaborating with SCAF to ‘overcome’ the current phase and start working towards a democracy. While there’s nothing against working with the army in transition, taking part in the elections would give legitimacy to SCAF and their actions. We would be saying that everything they’ve done so far, although not perfect, is acceptable. On January 25th we took the streets to completely overhaul the corrupt, inhumane regime. This means settling for nothing less than a real change. If the entire army remains as it has been for 60 years, then we need to clarify that we deserve better. Thus, boycotting.

2. Power to the people

   It’s comforting to believe that the army will hand over the power to a representative government as soon as we see the elections through. That is very naive, to say the least.

   We can only predict SCAF’s behavior by studying their past. That, and their motives. But given how the SCAF leaders have always been an integral part of the old regime, and that unveiling any of their activities would be a direct threat to each of them, it is rather obvious that they would like to protect the status quo.

   Thanks to the army, Egypt has remained a military dictatorship for 60 years. The emergency law has always existed in different shapes or forms, and while it is easiest to blame the police for abusing it, it is really the army that controls it. In fact, by the end of the Mubarak era, press had opened up to allow direct criticism of government officials and indirect bashing of the president himself. However, it was dangerously frowned upon to mentioned anything related to the military. In conclusion, if it wasn’t for the army’s backing, Mubarak’s regime would’ve lost its grip.

   Since February 12th, an argument was ignited in which some claimed SCAF’s blatant efforts to protect the status quo, most were blinded by the fairy tale of a knight in shining armor looking to take Egypt forward. Evidently, the following proved otherwise:

   • About 12,000 civilians have been forced to go through military trials, most of whom are unjustly behind bars as we speak.
   • One of the SCAF officials admitted to have conducted ‘virginity tests’ against a group of female protests in Tahrir square. In countries without military dictatorships, that is called sexual assault…it’s a pretty big deal.
   • Media censorship has been horrendous, to say the least. Independent papers like Al Masry Al Youm and Shorouk showcase disgusting propaganda headlines on their front pages. Journalists get called in at the military prosecution‘s for questioning practically anything against SCAF. TV owners are pressured to fire their presenters for criticizing the military just to stay out of trouble. It’s so bad, that Yosri Fouda had to resign in protest in order to bring attention to the issue. If that’s not enough, if your channel’s caught filming any of the protests with military presence, you can be shut down, or put up with this:

     Click here to view the embedded video.

     But censorship on its own is not enough. That is why SCAF makes sure to publish communiques against the revolutionaries, or make TV announcements to turn the people against Christian protesters:

     Click here to view the embedded video.

   • No matter how peaceful the protest is, as soon as the numbers grow, the army would immediately use force to break it up and detain those involved. Beating we can handle, army vehicles on the other hand…

     Click here to view the embedded video.

   No SCAF personnel in the right state of mind would transfer all of the power and authority to a civil, democratic government. There is absolutely nothing to suggest they are willing to collaborate, all the contrary. SCAF, fully backed by the United States, has been the biggest counterrevolutionary force hindering our efforts. How on Earth can we justify accepting their offer for elections after their intentions became crystal clear?

3. Bread, Freedom and Social Justice

   If it’s unrealistic to believe that the revolutionary demands can be met, then it’s a cracking joke to think that things can remain the way they are.

   We simply cannot build a new regime when we’re nowhere near done overhauling the old one. The ‘political game’ at the voting booth is played when we’ve achieved our basic demands. Diplomacy, especially when carried out via a government that has very limited power, will never bring change. It will be basic reform at best. And I didn’t take the streets to make some amendments here and there.

   If all we were after were free and fair elections, why did we remain at the square after Mubarak’s second speech? He had clearly indicated that he would not be running, nor would his son, and after everyone had seen the effect of taking the streets the elections would’ve most probably been valid. And if it’s about taking Mubarak to court, that could’ve easily happened with our first democratic government. We remained at the square because the regime had lost all legitimacy. We remained because we wanted to take matter into our own hands and wanted no favors from nobody. We remained because we weren’t asking for much, and we weren’t going to be appeased by anything short of it. That is why the struggle continues.

   We are not in a weak position, and there’s absolutely no reason to give up and think we should hang on to whatever we can get. We took the streets seeking bread, freedom and social justice – is this too much to ask for? Why settle for any less? What do citizens of the ‘developed’ world have that gives them the right to demand basic rights, while we scrap for whatever SCAF are kind enough to let us have?

   When you assume, you make an ‘ass’ of ‘u’ and ‘me’. Assuming SCAF will transfer all power to the government is going to leave us all looking like asses. It’s naive and completely unfounded.

When will I be willing to vote?

We all want to be able to take part in proper elections. If SCAF were to do the following, I’d be the first in line to take part:

• Release those unjustly detained and put the rest through civil prosecution
• Bring an end to any sort of censorship imposed on the different media outlets, as well as indictment propaganda against any critical voices
• Allow protests to take place without the use of force
• Vow to become but another entity in a government lead by an elected president and legislated by a parliament representing the people, and in no way a separate entity. This would eventually mean complete transparency. (I’d take their word for it and give them the benefit of the doubt)

If we allow SCAF to exit the spotlights before any of the above demands have been met, we would be letting them slip away and hide behind a powerless government in no way responsible for the real damage (a la Essam Sharaf now). That is absolutely unacceptable.

Not to mention…

Just as we thought SCAF wouldn’t dare dodge free and fair elections:

• Remaining figures from the old regime are running in districts all over the republic, with enough money and power to help them win
• As oppose to having small constituencies that better represent the people, different areas that might not even be adjacent have been merged together to dilute political representation
• No one has a clue where to vote, how to vote, how the lists vs independent candidates system works, or anything at all. These are probably the most confusing elections in recent history
• No actions have been taken to assure proper monitoring, avoid rigging, protect voters from harassment, and prevent bribes and the deployment of thugs.

Weak. Very weak.

The only problem is that they're good at what they do

Common criticism

I’ve recently come under fire for openly opposing the participation in the upcoming elections. The following are some of those points put forward, with my answer to each one.

• If you don’t vote, you will allow Feloul (remnants of the old, defeated regime) to win
  This is based on the assumption that the elections are legitimate, which they’re not. It doesn’t matter what happens since SCAF will continue in its attempt to protect the status quo
• If you don’t win, Islamists will gain control
  First of all, unlike many around me, I don’t get the image of American-portrayed Taliban whenever the word ‘Islamists’ comes up. More importantly, I’ll save my reaction for when we have real elections where the members of parliament aren’t useless jackasses like Essam Sharaf
• Boycotting marginalizes your voice. Vote to be heard
  Boycotting means voicing my disagreement with the current regime and how its running matters. My voice would only be wasted if it went to a party that doesn’t stand a chance of winning against an ex-NDP who will give SCAF all the leeway necessary. Or an honorable and respectable candidate who finds himself in a completely powerless position and takes decisions equivalent to changing Egyptian timing, leaving all calls related to foreign policy in the hands of SCAF
• If you boycott, you won’t make a difference. If you vote, you will
  If one vote of mine is insignificant when I abstain, why does it suddenly become a deal-breaker if I were to vote? It is one vote either way, and this is how I choose to make a difference
• It’s too late to boycott
  It’s too soon to have elections. No one has a clue what on Earth is going on anyway. I doubt anyone knows who they’re going to vote for, so it’s fine to decide to boycott now (not to mention that I had decided to boycott a couple of months ago)
• You can’t have everything, let’s get what we can
  This defeatist argument is completely beyond me. Why the hell did we all take the streets, with many of us dying in the process, if we didn’t think we can go all the way? And we’re not after ‘everything’. In fact, it is extremely easy to meet the revolution’s basic demands and grant the Egyptians basic human rights. And don’t be naive enough to think that any significant change will happen from within after elections
• What difference will it make? Just take part and don’t choose a candidate. There’s a fine for those who abstain.
  If I participate but vote blank, I would be legitimizing SCAF’s elections but voting against the candidates themselves. While I’m not exactly fond of many of those running for seats in the parliament, my main objection is with the system itself. And if I’m forced to pay a fine for abstaining, then I’ll do it, it’s a very small price to pay for doing what I believe in (now’s not the time to battle for my right to abstain)
• Take part, and then join demonstrations and strikes
  Who would I be demonstrating against? It doesn’t make much sense to collaborate with SCAF, vote in their elections, and then take the streets complaining of how they’re handling matters. After elections, we will have people who are powerless, yet for some reason accountable for all of our problems. It will be their responsibility to face the music when SCAF inevitably makes the decisions that are in noway favorable of the people
• Boycotting, if not by a majority, is useless
  On a personal level, I would never forgive myself for legitimizing SCAF and their fake elections, even if I were the only one to do so. Generally speaking, any voice abstained reduces the participation and gives more credit to the subsequent argument against the system

We took the streets seeking change, and that is our only option. The revolution continues, and justice will inevitably prevail. Y hasta la victoria siempre!

Alaa's iconic twitter avatar. One of many you can get a hold of at http://moftasa.net

Surely enough, Maspero’s bloodshed wasn’t sufficiently a crime on its own, and consequently, SCAF called in comrade Alaa Abdel-Fattah for investigation on charges of inciting violence between the mostly Coptic protesters and the army on the 9th of October. I don’t need to go through how horrendous the case is from start to finish. I think the fact that fellow leftist and comrade Mina Daniel, who was tragically murdered by the army from a high point that night, was also charged and called in for investigation, shows just how little legitimacy could be left for SCAF and their authority.

I haven’t always agreed with Alaa’s strategies and tactics to their fullest extent, but we have always shared that same dreams and objectives along with millions of Egyptians aspiring for an Egypt with bread, freedom, and social justice. I have always thought highly of him, and am proud that our beloved #Jan25 is armored with a hero who is wholly dedicated to our struggle.

His willingness to sacrifice himself entirely for the good of everyone is unprecedented. And although it is another step closer to victory in the ongoing revolution, I cannot hide the fact that Alaa’s detainment proved to be a lot tougher than I had initially hoped for. It’s a wake up call for the expensive price of freedom, and it makes one value the struggle on the one hand, but curse the incomprehensible cost on the other. I just didn’t think that the news of Alaa in military prison would affect me so strongly.

But it did. As it will, when he’s released. And as it will, when our fight reaches victory. Revolution’s just getting started, and Alaa Abdel-Fattah wasted no time in making it happen. Power to the people, and justice will prevail.

Tahrir Diaries

1. This. Is. Egypt.
2. National Police Day: Just another demonstration?
3. What happened on Friday 28th?
4. Bansyon el Horreya
5. The Bansyon’s regulars
6. Compilation of media appearances
7. Constant phone calls
8. The three highly emotional points of the Tahrir era

The feelings that burst out during the revolutionary times will always be intense. When I look back to the early stage of the revolution and the time I’ve spent at Tahrir, I can pin point three particular moments in which my emotions were in the driving seat in an unprecedented manner. Together, they create the trio of dots to be connected and tell the tale of my experience building up to Mubarak’s exit. I could have my entire memory with the ongoing revolution be completely erased, but I would do everything I can to hold on to those three gems. That would be enough for me to reconstruct the beautiful story that will forever be told.

1. The march into Tahrir square

   The revolutionaries who went through the Kasr El Nil encounter (many of whom took off from the Mostafa Mahmoud mosque) take pride in a victory that was arguably the most important on the 28th. We knew that a helping hand from the Giza and Haram people was absolutely vital, but we still cherish our bragging rights.

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   
   HD images of the Kasr El Nil battle

   When I crossed the bridge and marched into Tahrir square, I was all alone, but was actively on the lookout of any of my friends and loved ones who were with me on the mission. Looking back, though, perhaps I was better off away from any sort of distractions to live the moment to it’s fullest extent.

   As the sun was setting on the horizon, and the smoke with an affirming presence, the scene was unique in every imaginable manner. I walked towards Tahrir square step by step.

   It was at that moment that I felt the victory march. As my revolutionary counterparts were banging stones against the metal posts to compose the war drum, I found myself tearing up as my uplifted spirit almost carried me off the ground. It was a moment too valuable to keep to myself, so without conscious control, I made striking eye contact with all those around me with an overly joyful smile as if to say ‘I love you’.

   If that wasn’t enough, I leaped over the platform to the right as you approach the square from the bridge, and began hugging random, middle-aged men. I think their reaction was predominantly that of confusion, but I was completely blinded by the revolutionary mood.

   The moment was intense, it lasted long enough to carry me over to the square, it was like I was witnessing Cairo’s central square for the first time ever. This is a highlight of the revolution that I will cherish for years to come.

2. Threatened by thugs, overlooked by the army

   On Wednesday, April 2nd, it seemed like the Egyptian authorities were running out of ideas on how to handle a popular uprising. At Tahrir square, at around 2pm, I vividly remember the sight of my friend Adham Bakry tearing up as he overlooked tens of thousands of thugs holding pro-Mubarak signs approach. I hugged him and told him everything would be alright, at that point I wasn’t too concerned.

   I walked over to the edge of the square and was near the line of encounter. Fight hadn’t broken out yet, but the tense situation assured us it was a matter of minutes. After an exchange of irrelevant words, random objects were launched from either end.

   It was at that particular point that I felt the serious threat to our revolution. It’s relatively easy to handle anyone in uniform, but when thugs are disguised as genuine pro-Mubarak protesters, it’s difficult. In fact, the idea of civilians clashing at such a scale was unprecedented for us. I looked up to a residential building to our right and was shocked to see two army officers overlooking, one of whom held a professional camera with a sizable lens.

   Within minutes, I suffered from what I understand to be some sort of panic attack. Tears were shooting out of my red eyes as I was yelling at the top of my voice and my body was shaking as I was attempting to point out a plethora of reactionary emotions. I directed my anger towards the army officers, but the fact that they couldn’t hear me raged me further. It was bad to the extent that a handful of fellow revolutionaries in the vicinity ignored the spark of the thug battle and approached me for help.

   Luckily, my dear friend Mohamed Ghorab was nearby and he was able to calm me down. After taking my breath, I was able to put together logical sentences in which I explained that we are being attacked by thugs, and instead of keeping us separated, the army is photographing us as we dive into battle and end lives on either side.

   That was lowest point for me throughout the 18 days. I felt like we were very close to losing Tahrir square, and even reform, let alone change, was destined to become of a bygone era.

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   
   Turning point in the encounter

   Fortunately, a handful of victims of Mubarak’s educational system decided it was intelligent to advance deep into our territory with camels and horses. It was all uphill from there.

3. Hosni Mubarak steps down

   The biggest advantage of spending the entire time at the square is that you’re always where it’s happening. On a daily basis, fake announcements were made that Mubarak had fled the country. At first I used to fall for the cheers and believe there was a big story developing. Soon after, calling them out was at effortless ease. I remember thinking that, when the real news comes (and we all had faith it was a matter of days), how would we be able to distinguish?

   Sometimes you’ll never know how something feels until you live through it. On Friday, February 11th, right as the entire square was doing sunset prayers, the cheers organically sprouted from afar and approached in growing waves and it become clear that it was definitely not your standard hoax.

   Click here to view the embedded video.

   
   Sorry to cite Fox News, but they were lucky to broadcast the precise moment

   As soon as I heard, and repeatedly confirmed, the news that Suleiman announced Mubarak had stepped down, I froze. Moments later I was on the floor tearing up, the emotions were too much for me to handle standing up and I completely blocked out all of my surroundings. It was a particular moment with two of the most significant incidents of my life: victory against the regime, and the start of the revolution I’ve always dreamed of.

   More so than the other two emotional high points, this one in particular was a collective reaction, with hundreds of thousands in the immediate vicinity, and millions beyond, concurrently riding on a wave of sheer joy and glory. Beautiful.

It’s the vibrant feelings that make us feel alive, and what better trigger could there be than a revolution. A historical revolution as ours. Regardless of the outcome of the ongoing struggle, emotions ran wild and it is something to remember. In basic human terms, that is what revolutions are made of.

Click here to view the embedded video.

At first, the video appears as an astute method to simplify a bit of a pickle in the heart of the Arab world. After all, a dense Chomsky-style essay is not going to do a great deal in gearing the average Joe’s attention to a matter of such importance.

There were a number of points brought forward in the video, and I’d like to go over some of them:

1. Both Palestinians and Israelis call it the homeland
2. After WWII Western nations divided the land, but the Arabs rejected
3. Wars broke out, Israel won, taking control of Palestinian land
4. Israel has built settlements, which are like colonies, that are illegal
5. Palestinians have to go through checkpoints
6. Palestinians don’t have a place to call home
7. Situation resulted in violence, killing 1,000 Israelis and 6,000 Palestinians
8. Millions of Jews were murdered during the holocaust, and are fighting harder for a safe homeland out of fear
9. Palestinians are desperate for freedom and an independent state
10. Most Israelis and Palestinians agree on the two-state solution, and so does Obama
11. Powerful extremists in the Middle East, and Washington, are standing in the way of change
12. A global campaign is needed for peace between both sides

Do you see the problem? For the sake of this post, let’s ignore the fact that the people behind this video engage in dubious pro-Zionist activities and receive very sketchy funding. Let’s revisit the points and read between the lines

1. Both Palestinians and Israelis call it the homeland
   For starters, both sides are longing for the same land because they believe it’s their land. It’s not like Palestinians lived there long before Britain decided to hand over the territories to a group of Zionists or anything. It’s simply two sides after the same target.
2. After WWII Western nations divided the land, but the Arabs rejected
   Had the Arabs agreed, we wouldn’t have had any problems. But it is the Arabs who would not agree to accept a new country installed amongst them. Why they gotta be like dat?!
3. Wars broke out, Israel won, taking control of Palestinian land
   When a war breaks out, you win or you lose. Israel was fortunate enough to win, so they take control. It’s a fair deal.
4. Israel has built settlements, which are like colonies, that are illegal
   Nevermind Israel itself, no need to look at the pre-1967 borders, let’s focus our attention on the settlements, because that’s the only problem, really,
5. Palestinians have to go through checkpoints
   It’s fine to have checkpoints, even if they ‘sometimes’ last for hours? Thankfully, none of them are within Palestinian territories, and no humiliation takes place. It’s just an inconvenience.
6. Palestinians don’t have a place to call home
   The problem is that there isn’t a place the Palestinians can call their own, so we need to find them a place. Don’t be naive to think that they DO have a place to call, it’s just occupied by people who don’t belong there!
7. Situation resulted in violence, killing 1,000 Israelis and 6,000 Palestinians
   The situation become ‘complicated’. Naturally, both sides start to fight against each other, and people die on both sides. It’s a normal one-on-one with casualties on either end, the small differences in numbers is not the issue. The numbers could’ve been reversed, you know? With over 3,000 dead in a single wave of attacks on Gaza in 2009 – we’re certain that the total casualties of all years is about 6,000!
8. Millions of Jews were murdered during the holocaust, and are fighting harder for a safe homeland out of fear
   That’s it! I knew they’d pull the Holocaust card, works like a charm! All they want is a safe homeland, they just don’t want to suffer another genocide, is that too much to ask for? The Palestinians, on the other hand, didn’t suffer from any genocide, so what are they scared of? Why can’t they give peace a chance? Why do they have to resort to terrorism?
9. Palestinians are desperate for freedom and an independent state
   Don’t worry, they’re not after the right to return (because they have no interest). All they want, is to have a state recognized by the UN because we all know how well Israel has abided by the resolutions, and becoming part of the UN is the perfect solution. Also, the last thing on their mind is having direct access to their own resources, they just want to print post cards that say ‘We’re a state now, bitchezzz!’
10. Most Israelis and Palestinians agree on the two-state solution, and so does Obama
    Unless by ‘Palestinians’ they mean ‘Moderate’ Jews living in settlements, then I’m not sure from which British tabloid did they dig out the stats. Also, isn’t that the same Obama that, in his first appearance after winning the primaries, spoke at AIPAC and declared Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel? I’m sorry, I thought it was the same guy.
11. Powerful extremists in the Middle East, and Washington, are standing in the way of change
    As the visuals clearly suggest, the Arabs are all in ‘terrorist’ uniforms holding weapons, while the Israelis are in suits. One side is acting barbarically, and the other is reverting to diplomacy. Which team will you rout for?
12. A global campaign is needed for peace between both sides
    We don’t want anything from Israel. Both sides are having issues, even though many civilians on both ends wish for peace. What we need to do is to take the streets with the Palestinian and Israeli flags side-by-side and just be cute for a change. Both sides are equally responsible for the sticky situation they find themselves in, and they just need to learn to get along, and collectively hug a teddy bear.

You don’t need to put this video in the context of pro-Zionist Avaaz to understand the real aim behind it. With a campaign as such, any question of Israel’s legitimacy is discarded, any chances of return to pre-1967 borders is abolished, and anyone thinking that this is an illegal Israeli occupation resulting in an inhumane apartheid is absolutely insane. Even some of those who oppose the Israeli government are bound to fall for this and think it’s for everyone’s good. Clearly it’s not.

And just in case you brush off my interpretation as a rejection of any Western media’s attempt to improve the Palestinian situation, here’s a video by a white man, on an American channel, tackling the same issue. Only this time, the aim is to reveal the brutal occupation, not solidify the legitimacy of illegal Israel. It’s brilliant:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Zionists are a minority. Those who get a kick out of watching the Palestinians crumble as they expand their territory are actually quiet small in numbers. Even if main stream media (especially in the US) tells a story that’s almost unrecognizable with bias, alternative and independent sources of news and opinions are strong enough to combat. At the end of the day, it’s the numbers that matter, and with a network across the web and on the ground mobilizing, we’ll bring an end to the apartheid regime.

Power to the people – victory’s within reach, and justice will prevail.

I’m not the expert by any means, I just took the time to look into it. That, and I was offered a helping hand from my Mancunian friend Lizzie Walmsley.

The Making

Both the World Bank as well as the IMF were founded at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 with the intention of stabilizing the world economy and offering money and help to the countries that need it, in the form of loans. Many argue that the organizations’ intentions were largely genuine to develop poorer countries in particular, and help the world economy in general.

The Bretton Woods conference of 1944

In order for a country to join the World Bank, it needs to gain shares and therefore become a shareholder with a corresponding vote on decisions made. More importantly, you need to join and be accepted by the IMF. So even though they are separate entities, they practically function as one. It’s an unwritten agreement to avoid disagreement.

Up until 1967 the World Bank wasn’t easy on handing out loans – there was a bit of a rigid system that really limited the flow. After that, however, it started taking the form that we know of today; easy loans, but with strings attached. That is when fit really started to hit the shan.

The Setup

There are 187 members who are shareholders. The voting right is equal to the share, which could be understood. However, you can’t actually just decide to increase your share – each country is allocated how much of a say it gets depending on its economic size.

Meeting to 'solve' a financial crisis

As you’d expect, the US alone has over 15% of the shares, which is practically a veto. If the US votes against a decision, so do many of its ‘friends’ and it is almost impossible for the vote to pass. Japan has 6.8%, followed by China, who for the longest time was overlooked, but recently managed to prove it’s worth its current 4.4%.

If that’s not enough, the World Bank’s president is always an American, ‘recommended’ by the White House. In contrast, the IMF’s presidency is always granted to a European. So the US government dictates who will become the World Bank’s president, while at the same time holding the biggest share and vote.

Looking back at each of the World Bank’s presidents, you will find that there is almost always a clear conflict of interest. And the US government is well aware of that and in fact makes the appointment accordingly. In 1968, Robert McNamara become president of the World Bank and remained at the post for 13 years.

McNamara is a perfect example of the corruption plaguing the institutions; he was a World War II officer who was hired as a Business Executive at Ford and worked his way up until he became the first president from outside the Ford family in 1960. Weeks later, he was appointed as the Secretary of Defense in the Kennedy administration. During his 8 years at the White House, McNamara was the man behind many of the strategic decisions in regards to the Cuban Missile Crises and the Vietnam War.

Sure enough, McNamara become the president of the World Bank from 1968 all the way to 1981. During his time he refused to offer loans to countries that were not considered allies by the US, like Iran, and in fact focused the loans on military dictatorships that did not represent the people. Examples include Argentina, Chile and the Philippines – the officials made a significant cut, and the people were left to bail the country out of its loan.

The IMF

Political Economist Susan George explains the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Here is an excerpt from an interview with Noam Chomsky in which he explains the function of the IMF, in relation to the World Bank, eloquently, as always:

The IMF is not the World Bank, but it’s closely related. The IMF’s former U.S. executive director Karin Lissakers accurately described the Fund as the credit community’s enforcer. The IMF is very anti-capitalist. For example, suppose I lend you money. And I know that you’re a risky borrower, so I insist on a high-interest rate. Now, suppose that you can’t pay me back. In a capitalist system, it’s my problem. I made a risky loan. I got a lot of profit from the interest. You defaulted. It’s my problem.

That’s now what the IMF is about. What the IMF is saying, to put it in personal terms, is that your friends and neighbors have to pay off the loan. They didn’t borrow the money, but they have to pay it back. And my friends and neighbors have to pay me to make sure that I don’t lose any money. That’s essentially what the IMF is.

He went on to mention how Argentina, under military dictatorship, took loans and eventually defaulted. As a result, the loans were repaid by the workers and peasants.

Perhaps not all programs are harmful to the citizens of the governments that take them on. It could be argued that the World Bank, together with the IMF, has chipped in with its fair of achievements. Overall, however, the grass is not so green.

The problem

Click here to view the embedded video.

The main issue is the contradicting function of the World Bank and the IMF. On the one hand, their job is a political one, where they are responsible for funding projects and policies’ implementation to help reduce poverty worldwide. On the other, however, they represent money from the different countries that are looking to give out loans and benefit from the interest. Further corruption aside, this formula is bound to fail – banks will always look for their own interest, and it won’t matter who pays them.

Another problem is what could be seen like a bit of an orientalist approach to initiating projects. When a loan is pitched out, the conditions applied do not take into account the local needs and tend to be a recipe for failure. It is like success is measured by how the West would rate it.

Moreover, the idea of a loan for a development project is to eventually deem itself useless. In other words, a successful project is one that becomes sustainable for the country and allows them to pay back the loan, and move forward independently from there. Naturally, however, if poorer countries refrain from taking loans, that would defeat the purpose behind making profit out of loan interests. Ultimately, decision-making banks will want the clients coming back and asking for more loans.

Interestingly, in response to the Volcker report (pdf) which aimed at shedding light at corruption issues plaguing the organizations’ programs, World Bank president Robert Zoellic admitted:

The Volcker report makes clear the serious challenges ahead in overcoming the cancer of corruption in operations supported by the Bank, and it offers constructive recommendations. Now it will be up to all of us to move forward, as part of our on-going commitment to address this vital issue.

They’re not even trying to hide it.

But why would countries put up with this injustice? First of all, the majority of poor countries who suffer the most from the World Bank and the IMF are actually under dictatorships. Therefore, the decision makers in fact look at the cash they’ll slip in their pockets, and not what the rest of the country will have to repay. More importantly, being left out of the World Trade Organization would seriously hinder any country’s chances of growth.

The WTO put together the 10 ‘benefits’ of being a member. If you read between the lines, you’ll see how it’s a nice and dandy way of saying: privatization of as much as possible, and the reduction of production costs on the large corporations (regardless of environmental damage and  exploitation of labor). Despite the harm, abstaining would backfire more than giving in. In essence, you’re left with no choice but to take part.

Not only that, but even if a country’s economy grows, the percentage of the poor rises. And in fact, in most cases, the World Bank and IMF leave the countries in ruins way worse than how they started.

Michael Parenti put it nicely in an article he wrote in which he revealed the threat of the IMF:

The IMF imposes a “structural adjustment program” (SAP), requiring debtor countries to grant tax breaks to the transnational corporations, reduce wages, and make no attempt to protect local enterprises from foreign imports and foreign takeovers. The debtor nations are pressured to privatize their economies, selling at scandalously low prices their state-owned mines, railroads, and utilities to private corporations.

Some Examples – The Asian Economic Crisis

The following is an excerpt from the breath-taking documentary by Adam Curtis, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace. This segment in particular takes does an impressive job of summarizing the IMF’s involvement in the Asian economic crisis.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Looking Ahead

The World Bank and the IMF are not entirely harmful, but for the vast majority of human beings across the globe, they cause a lot more harm than anything else. A lot more.

In fact, the only groups benefiting are a few bankers, corrupt politicians, and multi-national business owners. Everyone else, from regular consumers, to employees, and sustainable communities worldwide, pay the real cost.

This needs to stop. And doing so is not as hard as one might think. For starters, spreading awareness about these bad boys is rather straight-forward since the web is glowing with material on the issue in different forms. Building on that, citizens of real democracies should maintain pressure on their representatives to avoid taking part in this dirty game.

The Greek showed us inspirational courage that might have not paid off, but it has still applied notable pressure that would make the next ‘democratic’ government think twice before getting itself involved. Spain and Italy are next to find themselves in an economic crisis and will be pressured into asking for loans that will deepen their problems. However, I’m personally optimistic that their people will take the Greeks’ courage to the next level and succeed in preventing their governments in enforcing imperialism.

Click here to view the embedded video.

As for the rest of us, our fight for the revolution is not over, and our struggle continues. With victory we will become independent, and justice will prevail. Perhaps our governments are under the illusion that they can get away with just about anything, but little do they know that sooner or later, we, the people, will win.

While the imperialists enjoy watching their hidden bank accounts’ growing digits, we are holding out for the sheer enjoyment of the revolutionary last laugh.

How’s Google+ different from Facebook and twitter?

One of Facebook’s strongest points is the home screen;  a simple way of finding out what’s going on with your friends and loved ones. We might be taking it for granted, but the level of interaction on Facebook is quite phenomenal. You can share a photo or video, with a title, description, and your own comment. After that, people can ‘like’ it and comment. So it becomes a stream of interesting, relevant topics, each with its own interaction.

However, on Facebook, you have to ‘friend’ people to interact with them. This means that they will be able to access your photos, updates, etc. Of course you can have different levels of security, but a) it’s a bit too complicated for the average person not willing to waste time on settings, and b) people can tell if they’re on a limited profile and it becomes quite awkward (we all know that feeling).

On the other hand, there’s twitter. Here you can follow anyone and everyone, it has nothing to do with whether or not you know that person. It’s ideal because you customize your timeline to the extent that almost all of the tweets showing up are of interest, because you’ve chosen whom to follow. However, all you have are the tweets with links. You don’t have ‘likes’ that indicate how many people support the update (you have retweets, but it’s not that same), and you don’t have comments organized on that particular update (each with the possibility of ‘like’ing it as well).

Click here to view the embedded video.

That’s where Google+ comes in. You add people to your ‘circles’ – you can have as many as you want, and add the same person to more than one circle. You don’t need to be friends, so just choose whoever you’re interesting in following. When you open Google+, you get a home screen almost identical to that of Facebook: updates by people with images or videos, description, ‘plus’es (exactly like Facebook’s ‘like’). The big difference, however, is that you have the different ‘circles’ to choose from.

For example, you can create a circle called ‘Alexandria’ where you follow any of the people you know of (but don’t necessarily know personally) who will be updating about anything going on in Alex. You might think this is like a twitter list, well in a basic way it is, but if you have a list on twitter with Alexandrians, the tweets show up in reverse chronological order regardless of their content, and the interaction with the individual tweets is not visible.

With Google+, you can click on the Alexandria circle on the left to filter all of the updates on the home screen, and you’ll see the updates with the thumbnails (or the videos to be viewed directly), and the ‘plus’es as well as the comments. Moreover, it’s automatically sorted according to the updates with most interaction relevant to you.

This is obviously assuming that everyone you’re after is on Google+. With over 20 million users already, and the ease of joining and inviting, it’s hard to see why you would face a problem. Also the mobile app (I’ve installed it on my Android) is pretty slick.

So that covers the major differences in comparison with Facebook and twitter. The following are some other features that I don’t see as important, yet they’re worth mentioning:

• Messaging, which Google called ‘Huddle’ is an attempt to make it easier to send and receive messages with people on Google+. It is similar to Facebook messages, only there’s a separate mobile application to save taps and give you direct access to the messages. It’s meant to be lightweight, and you can send messages to circles. Time will tell how useful this feature really is.
• Video chat with multiple users is an impressive feature. Realistically, though, I doubt it’ll catch on
• Backup photos and content to be shared later, or remove your entire account – something Facebook doesn’t let you do

As a social network, it’s got a sleek interface and some neat features. But let’s get down to business, we all know that socializing is what you do when you’ve got spare time, but Egypt and the Arab world are busying revolting.

How could we use Google+ for political activism online?

While Facebook was always the tool for discussion with friends and acquaintances, twitter took political activism online to a whole new level. The main reasons include the ability to follow those who bring you relevant updates, the simplicity in tweeting and sharing images straight from your cell phone wherever you are, as well as constant updates when on the ground at the scene.

Now that Google+ combines a bit of both, if it picks up in Egypt and the Arab world, it could be huge.

Firstly, you can use the circles for political activists. For example, you could have a circle for ‘Journalists in Egypt’ where you follow about 30 of the journalists who are actively updating. You will then have the opportunity to ‘plus’ any of the updates, and engage in comments. Other circles could depend on geographical location, so that if things get ugly in Suez, and mainstream media ignores them as usual, you could keep on eye on that circle to see the most significant updates (with less interactive/relevant updates not getting in the way and being pushed towards the bottom).

You can also create circles on the fly depending on the ongoing events. For example, if there’s a sit-in at Madrid’s main square, Sol, going on for the week, you can drag a few of the Spanish activists who you know will spend the entire week at the demonstration. Any content shared will be visible – but only if you filter by that circle, which means you’ll only see it when you feel like it.

Another advantage could be Huddle, the messaging system. If you are coordinating with a groupwho are active and on the ground with you, you could add them to a circle and easily message them directly if needed. Any sort of political group should make use of that so that if any member faces trouble, he or she could let the entire group know immediately by getting their attention, but at the same time without having to broadcast it to the world.

Facebook, then twitter, and now Google+

As an organization, regardless of its nature, Google+ facilitates the collaboration on the different tools already offered by Google, such as Calendar, Docs, etc.

If Google+ picks up, as it probably will, it won’t replace Facebook or twitter. In my opinion, it’ll make Facebook focus on friends and loved ones (as oppose to have 1,000 ‘friends’ on your list who you couldn’t care less about). It’ll also affect twitter by making it specialize in broadcasting news and minute-by-minute updates, but not discussions and arguments.

It might just fit into that pocket and complement.

In conclusion, I think Google+ could actually reduce the disadvantages of Facebook and twitter, making all three exist side-by-side. If the web spreads to the majority, then I think all three social networks, but especially Google+ and twitter, will be huge.

Let’s not forget, however, that political activism online can only do so much – it all comes down to taking the streets. That’s where revolutions happen.

At first it might need some adaptation to the calm tempo and the seemingly unrelated plots, but it soon fits together and connects quiet impressively. With many points to reflect on, one in particular caught my attention; a women by the name of Carmen Hermosillo, was an avid user of the new cyberspace and as early as 1994 published a rant against it.

Click here to view the embedded video.

You can read the full article here. Her argument is mind-blowing, to say the least. It is so rich with avant-garde ideas that, years later, it leaves you doubting your relationship with the web – something that has long been taken for granted. Summarizing her points would not do her justice, but let’s do it for the sake of the argument.

I’ll dare to say that Carmen’s main point is that the idea of cyberspace giving each person his or her voice is complete falsehood, and at the end of the day, it comes down to converting all sorts of interaction on the web to commodities that are traded like products. She argues that we as users vent out our feelings to feel good about ourselves, and then websites use them to ultimately make money. She went as far as saying that since there is minimal human interaction via cyberspace, we do not act in humane ways and in fact commit unethical actions as result of the medium.

Perhaps more-importantly, Carmen shares the sad-but-true story that the idea of power spreading equally across the masses is an illusion – it is just that power becomes transferred to an elite in cyberspace. We’re just replacing elites with others. Talk about cynical.

For the most part, I agree. Sometimes we as human beings get carried away into thinking that computers and technology will feed the poor, educate our children, and discover the future. We bet our blind faith on ‘innovation’ and technological developments. Our definition of progress is ironically old-fashioned and traditional.

Moreover, our channels of communication are businesses exclusively after making money. In the ‘humdog’ days, it was CompuServ and America On Line, now it’s Google, Facebook, twitter and the likes. Whether we’re nurturing the feel-good factor inside us, or simply expressing ourselves online, we’re ultimately helping a few business make more bucks.

Not only that, but it’s gotten worse because there are a limited number of ISPs throughout the globe controlling a handful of cables that deal with the entire internet traffic all over the world. Therefore, if any website is hosted on a server according to the terms of the hosting provider, any user accessing has to go through one of the ISPs in the country that are allowed to function under government surveillance. The hosts themselves have to stick to their country’s ISPs and governments and travel through the cables. Ultimately, there is no such thing as control-free information on the web.

Added on to that, social networks like twitter gave birth to the term ‘infleuncers’. An influencer is someone who has a lot of followers and therefore his or her word is valuable and results in notable change. People go to an influencer for advice. In fact, people trust the influencer and are less likely to question. In short, an influencer is powerful and has a great say on how matters will be perceived, and thus how we will move forward. In short, an influencer is part of the elite.

But that’s the extent of my agreement with Carmen.

When the makers of twitter put together a startup and gave birth to a revolutionary social network, they had a vision. As fascinating as their ideas might be, they are completely irrelevant. And the reason is that we, the users, are the ones who make the call. We decide how this network is used, and we redefine it, repeatedly. It’s gotten to the extent that twitter themselves would not dare make any decision that we don’t agree on; the backlash would be unbearable.

Thus, as the internet users grow in numbers, we, as a group, become more powerful. There’s no doubt that businesses attempt to squeeze every penny out of us, but that is more of a problem of capitalism on a global scale – something beyond this argument. And of course we have elites who receive special treatment, but it is completely different to elites in a traditional hierarchical society.

The elites in society are born as such, with little social mobility and never earn it. On the web, however, you become part of the elite after consistently providing valuable content for long periods of time. When you work hard, you are rewarded elite status. However, if you commit mistakes, you can lose that status, and therefore you have to keep up. Moreover, as an elite, if you watch a YouTube video, it goes up one count. If you retweet a tweet, the retweets go up one count. If you vote in a poll, your voice counts as one, and only one.

Therefore, the internet’s elite is no more than a wise man (or women) whose voice is given more weight, but he or she can never ultimately dictate the masses.

Our interaction via the web is relatively minimal, yes. But with time it’s becoming easier and cheaper to cut the distance between the two. Thanks to the web, you can now chat live with video, and it’s becoming increasingly available on the phone. That’s not exactly practicing the sense of touch virtually, but it is decades ahead of plain text forum chatting from back in the day.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Progress does not necessarily mean gadgets and wires, it has a much more profound meaning to that. But the human race hasn’t done much progress since poverty and misery are only getting bigger. However, such a drastic change requires some sorts of revolutions, and it is the web that is the ideal tool to exchange information across space and time and mobilize the people. In theory, if we were all on the web, bringing about social change would be as easy as wanting it. I said in theory.

One major player that Carmen failed to mention (and understandably so, it was .94, remember?) is open-source. This is a true demonstration of effective collaboration via the web that creates products and services whose sole function is make our lives better and they are all absolutely free.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Open-source single-handedly fights the disadvantages of the web. For example, the issue of lack of privacy and controlled information via the monopoly of the ISPs and the cables could be solved via Tor – which is a web of virtual channels that ensure communication is encrypted. There are infinite examples of open-source projects that help protect the people from censorship, surveillance and lack of privacy.

In conclusion, Carmen was right. Cyberspace is mostly a silent place, a commodification of its users. That is what cyberspace was. However, the web is different. We, the people, the users, the masses, have taken control and redefined what the web means and how it is used. We have given birth to an organic system that grants the elite status to those who deserve it, but is purely prestigious in nature – we each have no more than one vote. We have embarked on an information super highway where companies have learnt not to go against us, or even attempt to push us in a certain direction.

And what better way to illustrate than with my all-time favorite YouTube video?

Click here to view the embedded video.

This is, my friends, power to the people. And it’s just getting started.