http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2011-02/11/c_121065883.htm

美国《基督教科学箴言报》2月8日文章 题：阿拉伯政权相继倒台的五个原因(作者开罗大学和中密歇根大学政治学副教授、社会政策与谅解研究所研究员穆阿塔兹·法塔赫)

    埃及的群众示威并非源于轻微的不满，穆巴拉克政权面临深层次的合法性削弱问题———阿拉伯世界有很多地区都存在同样模式的合法性削弱。这种情况不会随示威的增多或新政府的成立消失，而将持续多年。理解更大范围的社会和人口因素对于理解中东的动荡以及阿拉伯世界可以怎样进步至关重要。

    政府合法性的削弱源于以下五个方面：

    第一项挑战是我所说的生物挑战。老统治者和占人口绝大多数的年轻人存在代沟。

    埃及目前约有65%的人口不到30岁，18—29岁人口的失业率达25%。只有1%的埃及年轻人正式属于某个政党，也就是说，他们在政治上没有得到充分代表。埃及年轻一代根本不记得穆巴拉克在1973年反对以色列的战争中是令人尊敬的空军将领。他的军事背景或许对年轻人的父母意味着很多，但对年轻一代本身没有什么意义。

    第二，地理挑战也是政府合法性削弱的一个因素。

    拥有石油和磷酸盐这类基础资源、而且控制着地缘战略航路甚至水资源是突出的地理优势。这种对外援和自然资源的控制使很多阿拉伯政府通过“酬金”或“提供薪俸的石油政体”在上世纪70年代获得合法性并维持到90年代。但是，从自然资源、控制航路和外国援助中获得的财富无法继续产生同样效果，让阿拉伯政权合法。新一代对免费教育、医疗和工作的要求更高。经济上“生活优裕的超级公民”和政治上“每况愈下、无足轻重”这种模式未来行不通。正如联合国人类发展指数显示的，从总体上说，穆巴拉克政权没能把货币资本转化为社会资本。

    第三，该地区的专制统治者面临与伊斯兰相关的新挑战，这可称为神学挑战。

    一些伊斯兰教主义者已经证明，他们比某些世俗专制统治者更信奉民主。专制统治者用来诽谤中伤伊斯兰教主义者的“神学或神权”手段已经日益失灵，因为事实证明很多伊斯兰教主义者不像他们的统治者那么暴力或激进。埃及中间党等现代伊斯兰团体一直在设法证明自身以和平民主方式参政的诚意，但却被剥夺了这一权利。

    现在越来越难以把所有伊斯兰教主义者都说成是“基地”领袖的信徒或学生。现代伊斯兰教主义者使用民主的语言，让自己与暴力激进的伊斯兰分子区别开来，从而拆穿专制国家主张中央集权的精英用来推迟民主进程的神学或神权借口。

    第四是技术挑战。

    如果不是有了使穆斯林与世界充分联系的技术，之前的情况都不可能出现。卫星和互联网让穆斯林看到格鲁吉亚、乌克兰、突尼斯和其他国家正在发生什么。通信技术的进步促使示威活动蔓延到整个地区。埃及的统治精英坚持说：“‘脸谱’青年不是真正的埃及青年。”事实已经证明了相反的观点：“脸谱”青年就是埃及青年，因为他们享受到在线下享受不到的言论自由。

    第五是意识形态挑战。

    这个时代，像纳赛尔主义和伊斯兰教教义一类上世纪五六十年代的非民主意识形态已经越来越没有吸引力。埃及已经独立了几十年，再加上无处不在的腐败和苏联模式的垮台，纳赛尔采纳的这些不利于民主的意识形态失去意义。改革和变化等字眼已经成为阿拉伯街头的最新流行词。

    前文提到的生物、地理、神学、技术和意识形态挑战都削弱了穆巴拉克政权的合法性。

The military is deeply embedded in Egypt's government, economy and society

In the six decades since 1952, when the Egyptian military brought an end to a century-and-a-half of monarchical rule, it has stood at the core of the Egyptian nation.

In this largely self-appointed position, the military underpinned a repressive police state and lost successive wars against Israel in 1948, 1956 and 1967 - the last in humiliating fashion.

Despite this, the institution has seamlessly woven itself not just into Egypt's structures of power but also its economy, society, and even imagination.

Its first advantage was to be present at the creation.

In 1952, a coalition of junior officers led by Gamal Abdel Nasser overthrew King Farouk, perceived as a corrupt British puppet.

Like many post-colonial armies in weak states, it immediately began to spin a narrative of modernity and heroism that, to a large degree, endures today.

The debates that have sprung up about the Muslim Brotherhood are echoes of those that took place in the 1950s, a period in which the army, at the high point of its clutch on the state, portrayed itself as the sole bulwark against Islamic extremism and the linchpin of regional stability, an image it still works to project today.

These efforts were greatly burnished by the famous surprise attack across the Suez Canal in 1973.

Despite Israel's subsequent advance to within 100km (62 miles) of Cairo and Egypt's post-war concession to stay out of most of the Sinai Peninsula, the strategy washed away much of the shame of the 1967 Six-Day War.

Throughout, the army has succeeded in preserving its reputation by cannily shifting the burden of repression onto the despised interior ministry and brutal secret police, or Mukhabarat. It is therefore in the regime, but not of it.

All of Egypt's post-1952 leaders have been military officers, and both serving and retired generals are sprinkled throughout the various arms of government.

In spite of this ubiquity, the army has cultivated the impression of standing above the fray, and therefore outside of the petty corruption and failures of governance that blight Egypt. 

This has been all the easier because its grip extends well beyond the institutions of the state and into the economy.

Like the politically powerful armies of Turkey and Pakistan, the military receives lucrative sinecures and controls factories that produce everything from weapons to home appliances.

Loyalties split?

Barring an interlude between 1955-73, when Egypt tilted toward the Soviet Union, the US has stood closely alongside the institution. When the Camp David Accords led to the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, the American aid began flowing.

Since that crucial year - one in which the Middle East convulsed with the Iranian Revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - annual US aid to Egypt has averaged $2bn. In 1980, it made up a tenth of Egypt's entire output.

This far exceeds even the large sums granted to Pakistan since 9/11, and has made Egypt the second-largest recipient of US aid behind Israel for most of this period.

The US long employed a 3:2 ratio in determining how much aid would go to Israel and Egypt respectively. Even though this has slipped over time, the Obama administration still sent $1.6bn in 2010. It planned to ask Congress for the same amount for 2011.

Has this aid been directed to alleviating poverty, or shoring up democratic forces?

Not quite. The military portion of assistance since 1987 has been $1.3bn annually.

Over the past decade-and-a-half, the proportion of non-military to military aid has fallen almost continuously. It may be at its most skewed for a generation, with US military aid to Egypt five times as large as all other aid.

US assistance has been estimated to account for up to 40-50% of Egypt's military spending, though the figure was closer to 25% in 2008, the latest available figures. But its contribution is greater than that in qualitative terms, given the benefits Egypt receives.

America has trained legions of Egyptian officers at its military schools, and sold Egypt advanced weapons platforms ranging from Apache helicopters to F-16 fighter jets.

These give it a regional fighting power matched only by Israel. Some of these sales, like those of the M1A1 Abrams tanks that have recently been deployed in Tahrir Square, entailed major technology transfers.

New Vice-President Omar Suleiman is a military man

Given this huge US contribution to the Egyptian military, many had assumed that US pressure should be enough to encourage the generals to peel themselves away from Hosni Mubarak and lever him but of the presidential palace.

But this is premature. Knowing that the regime could endure for nine months, with or without Mr Mubarak himself, the military may be loath to abandon those who might yet wield the power to dismantle some of their privileges.

Moreover, the highest levels of military leadership have been tightly woven into the regime, as with the appointment of Omar Suleiman and Ahmed Shafiq, both intimately connected to the top generals.

But with so many of their resources flowing from Washington, loyalties may be split.

Junior officers may feel less beholden to the regime's patronage, but they are also less susceptible to American influence, making their decision-making highly unpredictable.

In any case, Egypt's low-ranking officers have been known since 1948 for lacking initiative.

It is US pressure on the senior echelons that will prove the most important determinant of events in the days and weeks that follow. This would be an ironic turn for an army claiming such intensely nationalist credentials.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12375426

Resignations

The US - a key ally of the Mubarak government - has called for a swift transition of power, although it has not explicitly told Mr Mubarak to leave.

It has also encouraged all parties to fully engage in talks with opposition groups.

But there was confusion on Saturday after US special envoy Frank Wisner, who was sent by President Barack Obama to Cairo apparently to urge Mr Mubarak to announce his departure, said he thought Mr Mubarak "must stay in office" to oversee the transition, saying his "continued leadership is critical".

The US state department later distanced itself from the comments, saying they were Mr Wisner's own and were not co-ordinated with the US government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12372983

Hillary Clinton: Middle East facing 'perfect storm'

Hillary Clinton: The status quo is simply not sustainable

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the Middle East is facing a "perfect storm" of unrest and nations must embrace democratic change.

Speaking in Munich, Mrs Clinton said the status quo in the region was "simply not sustainable".

She said that transition to democracy could be chaotic but in the end "free people govern themselves best".

She was speaking following unrest that has seen Tunisia's president flee and Egypt gripped by protests.

There have also been major protests in Jordan and Yemen.

'Strategic necessity'

Mrs Clinton said at the meeting of the Middle East Quartet in the southern German city: "The region is being battered by a perfect storm of powerful trends.

"This is what has driven demonstrators into the streets of Tunis, Cairo, and cities throughout the region. The status quo is simply not sustainable."

Tunisian President Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia in December

She said that with water shortages and oil running out, governments may be able to hold back the tide of change for a short while but not for long.

"Some leaders may believe that their country is an exception - that their people will not demand greater political or economic opportunities, or that they can be placated with half-measures.

"In the short term, that may be true; but in the long term that is untenable."

Mrs Clinton admitted that transition could cause a period of instability but that countries would emerge more prosperous if they were more open.

"This is not simply a matter of idealism; it is a strategic necessity."

Mrs Clinton said she was fully aware of the possibility that countries that embraced change could fall back into authoritarianism.

That was why, she said, that free and fair elections were not enough, they had to be matched with institutions of good governance - the rule of law, a free judiciary and freedom of speech.

The US has called for an immediate, orderly transition of power in Egypt.

President Barack Obama urged Mr Mubarak "to make the right decision" to end weeks of unrest but stopped short of telling him to step down immediately.

Tunisian President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia on 14 December after weeks of anti-government protests.

More than 20,000 anti-government protesters took to the street of Yemen's capital, Sanaa, on Thursday, calling for President Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12369422

By Martin Asser BBC News

The scenes on the street are described very differently by the state-controlled media in Egypt and international broadcasters

A well-known news anchor publicly quitting over editorial interference by Egypt's government; foreign reporters seized by security forces or roughed up by loyalist thugs; officials lambasting pan-Arab media outlets and the BBC. Are these omens for the end of days for Hosni Mubarak's rule?

Any hopes that the Mubarak government would one day embrace a free media in Egypt now lie in tatters.

As the world watched massive peaceful demonstrations calling for an end to Mr Mubarak's rule, viewers of Egyptian state-run TV have been fed a very different story.

Official broadcasts show small, if spirited, pro-Mubarak rallies, while Tahrir Square gatherings have been portrayed mainly in a context of violent instability - especially when pro-Mubarak ruffians attacked pro-democracy protesters on 2 February.

At the time of writing, the "Day of Departure" rally is being filmed by state TV from a distant rooftop, described by the Orwellian caption "Demonstrations to support stability".

Arabic commentary asserts similar events are taking place across Egypt. In effect, pro-democracy rallies have become pro-government rallies following Mr Mubarak's warnings of chaos if he leaves office.

But not every broadcaster has been so on-message. Shaheera Amin, deputy head of the English-language Nile TV, announced her resignation yesterday because she no longer wanted to participate in "their propaganda machine".

"We are not allowed to report on what's happening in Tahrir Square," Ms Amin told the BBC. "We're just covering the pro-Mubarak rallies, which I thought was ridiculous."

Independent voices

The sheer numbers of anti-Mubarak protesters show many Egyptians are happy to turn a deaf ear to what they see as a discredited state-controlled mouthpiece.

They can get their information from the internet, or international satellite broadcasters, and - ironically in today's political climate - they may have benefited from efforts by Mr Mubarak's son, Gamal, to open up the media.

Tanks were positioned outside the Egyptian state's TV building in Cairo as the protests flared

In recent years, independent newspapers have been allowed to voice vigorous criticism of government officials, although the president and state institutions are off-limits under draconian criminal libel laws.

Even the state-owned press, like the venerable al-Ahram founded in 1875, have inched towards a more diverse range of opinion, though controversial opinions are conveyed in cryptic or coded language.

"The Egyptian media includes many courageous voices and they have done a great job in the last few years," says Egyptian journalist Hosni Imam, who heads the Foreign Press Association in London.

What he calls the "earthquake" now rocking Egypt presents opportunities for the media to take up, but also major challenges to be overcome.

"It is clear the ministry of information's power has waned," he said. "After the 'Battle of the Camel' (in Tahrir Square on 2 February), it was silent, showing it has lost the plot. The state is collapsing.

"But it is not easy to become free in a single moment, after decades of journalists being made to suppress information."

'Israeli agents'

But this is more than a game of media cat-and-mouse after decades of state interference and manipulation.

As Egypt's rulers struggle to handle the phenomenon of People Power in city centres, they have turned on the independent media in a classic display of "shoot the messenger" behaviour.

First rumours were spread that Israeli agents where posing as foreign journalists in the country to foment the unrest. Officials alleged external media outlets - including the BBC - were biased, distorted and even seditious.

On Wednesday, as violence was convulsing Tahrir Square, foreign journalists found themselves being seized and mistreated by security forces or beaten up by pro-Mubarak mobs.

Many were accused of deliberately undermining Egypt's stability by misrepresenting the protests.

"The thugs of the regime are conducting a vendetta against journalists, who are not part of the story and should be allowed to cover it freely," says Hosni Imam.

"Instead of going with its dignity and honour intact, by doing this the government is tarnishing its own reputation - the world is watching."

http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2011-02/04/c_121050196_3.htm

要點:

1. 支持穆巴拉克的群眾被毆打。

2. 強調報導支持政府群眾要求"穩定"。

3. 強調軍警行為克制。

4. 沒有任何圖片。

5. 強調埃及博物館等場所被放火、劫掠。

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12339521

By Roger Hardy Middle East analyst, Woodrow Wilson Center

Protesters in Cairo have made it clear they want President Mubarak to leave

The Arab order is crumbling. But whether it will collapse or somehow re-invent itself is far from certain.

Arab rulers, from North Africa to the Gulf, in rich countries and poor, find themselves in essentially the same boat.

Virtually without exception, they preside over corrupt autocracies with little or no legitimacy in the eyes of their people.

All of them now watch Egypt's "days of rage" with mounting trepidation. In the fate of the ailing Egyptian ruler, 82-year-old Hosni Mubarak, they see their own.

Western commentators are right to say the protests are about "them" rather than "us".

The anger of the protesters is largely directed inwards - at a bankrupt Arab order - rather than outwards at Israel, the United States or the West.

Largely, but not entirely. The West is complicit in Arab autocracy.

For decades, American and European leaders chose stability over democracy. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Jordan has announced political reforms following rallies in the capital, Amman

President George W Bush tried, briefly, to pursue a "freedom agenda" in the Middle East but it failed, and ageing autocrats could once again breathe freely.

Now, Western leaders including Barack Obama find themselves essentially onlookers as events move with dizzying speed towards an outcome none can foresee.

Others are spectators, too, even if they pretend otherwise.

Iran is acting as if the Arab masses are belatedly following the example of the Khomeini revolution.

In fact, if the young demonstrators have a role model - and some actively disavow one - it is democratic Turkey rather than theocratic Iran.

Also a bystander is al-Qaeda, whose pretensions to being the voice of Arab and Muslim discontent have been punctured.

Analysts would do well to exercise a little humility.

My own guess, for what it is worth, is that this is not the beginning of an Arab spring, but of something more messy and drawn-out.

The old order still has plenty of fight in it.

The battle for the Arab future is under way. Since the stakes are high, the struggle will be fierce.

Roger Hardy is a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington DC.

31 January 2011 Last updated at 12:39 GMT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12325128

The events of the last week will have profound consequences for the Middle East for years to come. Egypt's role in the region is going to change.

President Hosni Mubarak has been the central pillar of the alliance between Western powers and authoritarian Arab leaders and without him it may not be sustainable.

He has been the only Arab leader the Israelis trusted. Their biggest fear is that without him their cold - but so far resilient - peace with Egypt will be in danger.

The president has been the West's necessary man in the Middle East for 30 years.

That is why Egypt has continued to receive vast amounts of American aid, as well as political support from Britain and other European countries - despite a deplorable human rights record, crooked elections, the suppression of virtually all organised political opposition and rampant corruption.

Those are some of the reasons why tens of thousands of people have taken to the streets.

His allies were already planning for what would come next, because he is 82.

But for them the easiest assumption was that he would be able to bequeath the Egyptian system largely intact to a chosen successor. Favoured names were his son Gamal, or the intelligence chief General Omar Suleiman.

The crowds on the streets have almost as much contempt for Gamal Mubarak as they have for his father.

Gen Suleiman has been the second most powerful man in Egypt for years, the main link with the Americans, the Israelis and the Saudis.

In the eyes of the protesters though, he has been tainted by agreeing to become a vital part of President Mubarak's survival plan.

The popular uprising makes it unlikely that the current system will survive President Mubarak.

Optimistic Egyptians say free elections, if they ever happen, would produce a vibrant democracy.

Pessimists say that the removal of the police state would lead to chaos - which would be exploited by Egypt's jihadi groups. These have been suppressed ruthlessly by the Mubarak regime.

The country's only properly organised mass political movement outside the ruling party is the Muslim Brotherhood, and it would do very well in any free election.

Unlike the jihadis, it does not believe it is at war with the West. It is conservative, moderate and non-violent. But it is highly critical of Western policy in the Middle East.