Camp of the Saints Nightmare Scenario Looms Closer

As suggested in the recent post on Lampedusa, the 6,000 Tunisian illegal immigrants who appeared on its shores in a matter of days, appear to have been but the harbingers of a mass human wave that will surge out of North Africa and the Middle East and into Europe. Into our already rapidly fracturing European societies this will inject a vigorous and aggressive Islamising impulse, and embolden the incomers’ established co-religionists to become more strident (in the language of our governments and special interest lobby groups -‘assertive’) in demanding privileges within their host states.

Just as in the Camp of the Saints, an appeal is being made to our better natures; to our compassion for our fellow human beings, in the face of the bloody tyranny of Gaddafi. Some 1,000 Libyans we are told, have lost their lives in recent days thanks to Gaddafi’s brutality. Already, 22,000 have fled Libya for Tunisia, and a further 15,000 for Egypt. Now, United Nations General Secretary Ban Ki-moon has waded in to instruct the European nations ‘to keep their borders open to people fleeing Libya.’ If our borders are opened, those that come are highly unlikely to ever return to Libya. They will instead stay, and then demand that their immediate and then extended families are brought here to live in perpetuity with full citizenship rights. And we shall have to pay for them; accommodate them; acquiesce to their ‘cultural sensitivities’, and put up with an ever-increasing demand for Sharia compliance.

Instead of admitting an influx of Libyans, Libya’s neighbouring nations should consider enforcing a no-fly zone over the country. We however, should not be involved in such intervention. Humanitarian assistance in the form of food, tents and medical supplies should be supplied to those areas of Libya which have already sloughed off Gaddafi’s rule, but Libyans should not be admitted into European nations. We have no holding facilities, and our legal and immigration systems are set up in such a way as to make it exceptionally difficult to enforce automatic deportation of incomers once the situation in their countries of origin has stabilised.

Admitting Libyans and Tunisians as ‘refugees’ will simply lead in the medium term to a mass permanent influx of Algerians, Egyptians, Yemenis, Bahrainis, Jordanians, Syrians, etc into Europe which will deal a devastating blow to the freedoms and way of life of European peoples in our own countries. We will be barraged in the days, weeks and months ahead by propaganda in the mainstream media – particularly in the BBC – aimed at undermining our national sovereignties and admitting these outsiders. If this is permitted, this will inflict irreparable damage upon our societies, unless that is, the indigenous peoples of Europe react to show that they will not tolerate these people in their midst. Why should we surrender our lands, our liberties and our way of life to this de facto hostile colonisation?

Ban Ki-moon addresses the UN on the Situation in Libya

Mubarak's Speech to the Egyptian People: a Plea for 7 Months in Office

Mubarak has addressed the Egyptian people this evening, claiming that "violence and looting" had been generated by political forces taking advantage of the recent protests. He claimed to have "been moved" by the pain experienced by Egyptians, and offered the people a choice between "stability" and "chaos" whilst acknowledging a "new reality". His new government would have new priorities which would be responsive to the demands of young people, and he claimed that he was opening a dialogue with all new political parties over constitutional reform in order "to restore calm".

However, he castigated some unnamed political forces for refusing to enter into dialogue and appealed to "the people" to recognise the difficult conditions under which he came to the presidency. He claimed that he "would not betray what you have entrusted to me" (i.e. "calm and stability") and stated that he would oversee a transition, ensuring that the country remains stable, claiming that he had not intended to stand again for the presidency.

Mubarak stated that he would devote his remaining months in office to ensuring a peaceful transition and  requested Parliament to modify Article 67 of the Constitution so that a limit would henceforth be defined for the presidential term. He also called upon the police to protect the freedom of the people, and for the judiciary to investigate all corruption charges as well as "who was behind the looting and the violence" of the recent protests.

What will the protesters make of this speech? Will they be satisfied to allow Mubarak to retain the reins of power until September this year? I doubt it. Furthermore, could not Mubarak's reference to prosecuting those whom he deemed to be "behind the looting and the violence" be used as a pretext for the arrest of many innocent protesters?

Hosni Mubarak to leave Office (but not yet)

Reports claim that Hosni Mubarak has announced that he will step down at the next election in September. What does this betoken for Egypt and its people? Are these reports true, or is this simply a political ruse on the part of this wily old dictator? Given the scale of today's demonstrations and the army's announcement that it will not fire on protesters, it seems that he has no option other than to leave office and that this statement is indeed genuine.

When he does eventually go, which one would assume ought to be soon, who will be left in charge? Will a caretaker administration allow sufficient time for a pluralist slate of candidates and political parties to contest the Egyptian elections, or will, as many have predicted, the Muslim Brotherhood simply step into the void and proffer itself as the Government of the people's choice? Egypt falling into the hands of Islamists would be very bad news for its people, particularly for its large Coptic minority, as well as for the wider world. Will Egypt choose the route of Eastern Europe in 1989, or of Iran in 1979? Hopefully the former, but that may be being overly optimistic.

Will Mubarak go, will Mubarak stay? Should he, or shouldn’t he?

Hosni Mubarak’s address to the Egyptian people demonstrates that he has no intention of relinquishing his personal grip on power, although he has been quite willing to sacrifice his government. Given that protesters have made it clear that it is Mubarak himself as well as the regime that he has presided over that they wish to see removed, this move will not pacify the street.

How then, can Mubarak maintain his position? Much depends upon the loyalty of the Egyptian military and police forces. If they stand by Mubarak and he is willing to use unrestrained force, there is a chance that this current wave of protest could be broken. In the longer term however, the problems that underpin this mass discontent will only grow worse, and the likelihood of a bloodier denouement will increase. Unlike the Chinese Communist Party in the wake of Tiananmen Square, Mubarak will not be able to buy off discontent through the promise of a bright economic future, for Egypt is not enjoying China's double-digit economic growth. Instead it is faced with overpopulation, spiralling food prices and a water shortage. Taking into consideration the fact that the US has indicated that its support for Mubarak is wavering and conditional upon political reform and concessions to the protesters, Mubarak’s continuation in office for anything but a brief period seems unlikely.

By definition, the media relish events such as those that are unfolding in Egypt, for they provide good copy and thereby help attract readers, listeners and viewers. As there is also a general cultural tendency in our media to see ‘change’ in a positive light, it is prone to equating large-scale popular protest with ‘progress’, irrespective of the demands that the protesters may be articulating (a notable exception being media treatment of the EDL). The BBC talking heads appear to be especially susceptible to this line of reporting, seeing in any popular protest movement the values that they unconsciously (or at times, perhaps consciously) project onto it, i.e. those of a globalist, universalist liberalism. So it has been with respect to its treatment of events in Egypt, where it has striven to emphasise the role of the internet, Facebook and non-politically affiliated youth in the genesis of this outbreak of popular discontent.

There is of course a much older and well-established form of political organisation and opposition in Egypt which most certainly does not hold views and values which chime with liberalism, although it is globalist and universalist in aspiration: the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded in 1928, this organisation has been Islamist since its inception, and through its work with the Egyptian poor has established a broad base of support amongst sections of the population and has carved out a role for itself larger than that of a conventional political party. The BBC has been at great pains to emphasise that the Muslim Brotherhood is not at the forefront of the current protests, and that instead web-savvy, educated middle-class youth are leading the way. However, the chants of “Allahu akbar” by protesters leaving the mosque after Friday prayers indicate that far from all of those taking to the streets are liberal, secular democrats.

When Mubarak does fall, who or what will take over? There has been some speculation that the military might step into the void for at least a transitional period, but after that, what? If such a relatively peaceful transition can take place, there may then be elections in which the best-organised parties would presumably garner most of the seats. Do the web-savvy, middle-class youth possess the organisational skills, structures and coherent political programme(s) necessary to appeal to most Egyptians? I do not profess to know, but I suspect that as in any country they are a highly disparate bunch with widely differing views as to how Egypt should be governed and the values that it should embrace. The Muslim Brotherhood will be waiting with its well-organised network of activists and supporters and will do well whatever new system comes into play.

If the Muslim Brotherhood were to come to power either as a majority party or in coalition with another Islamist party, this would have highly negative implications for the future of Egypt and its people. The first to suffer under such an administration would be the Coptic Christian community, which estimates suggest as being anywhere between 5 and 15 million strong. Ever since Islam's arrival in Egypt, the Copts have been subject to discrimination and violence in an attempt to get them to convert, and the policies of an Islamist administration would surely continue in this tradition. Naturally, by definition a Muslim Brotherhood government would also be very bad news for women, homosexuals and freethinkers. Given Islam’s abhorrence of representational sculpture and art, Egypt’s great inheritance of art from its pharaonic and classical past would be under as much threat as the Bamiyan Buddhas. Vandalism against this priceless heritage would be a huge tragedy for the Egyptian people and civilisation more generally.

The geopolitical implications of Egypt going Islamist would also be considerable. As the most populous country in the Arab world which sits astride the Suez Canal, this would not bode well for Western interests. Events in Tunisia appear to have played a role in triggering protest in Egypt, and protest has also spread to Jordan. One can only hope that the populations of Egypt and Jordan look at the bloodshed and horror that Islamism has brought to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and recoil from the option of propelling Islamists to power. Whilst the BBC may be erring on the side of portraying these nascent revolutions as an Arab equivalent of 1989, we may in fact be witnessing an Arab version of 1979. Let us hope for the sake of all concerned that it proves to be the former rather than the latter, but on this score I am not optimistic.

UPDATE: Click here for summary of Mubarak's announcement to stand down.