The implications of the American-Iraqi security pact preoccupied Arab pundits while Egyptian commentators were more concerned with the privatisation of their country, note Gamal Nkrumah and Mohamed El-Sayed Whippersnappers here and there Mubarak celebrated in India but a new asset management programme received a fair crack of the whip at home The four-day visit by President Hosni Mubarak to India dominated the official press. This after all, was the first official visit by an Egyptian president to India in more than a quarter of a century. The onus was on economics rather than politics. In the past, India and Egypt had developed close political ties in the context of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Today, the focus is decidedly economic. The two countries are among the emerging economies that aspire to greater prosperity for their respective burgeoning populations. "Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is widely considered the chief architect of India's economic miracle, told me during a previous visit to India that President Mubarak is held in high esteem in India. He said that Egypt, therefore, has tremendous influence in the Middle East and the international arena among developing countries. It is in this context that India hopes to cultivate closer links with Egypt," wrote editor-in-chief of the official daily Al-Ahram Osama Saraya. "Mubarak discusses ways and means of strengthening economic cooperation and investment opportunities with India", extrapolated Al-Ahram. The paper noted that Mubarak told a forum of Egyptian-Indian businessmen that Egypt was the centre of attraction for investment in the Middle East, stressing Egypt's determination to further economic deregulation and trade liberalisation. Mubarak, in turn, was informed that Indian businesses plan to invest $3.5 billion in Egypt. "Indian papers highlight Mubarak's visit", Al-Ahram noted. The paper also reviewed Mrs Suzanne Mubarak's activities in India, exchanging experiences in advancing women's interests. Writing in Al-Ahram, Mohamed Naaman Galal praised Indian democracy and noted the timing of Mubarak's visit to India which coincided with the birthday anniversary of India's first prime minister Jawaharal Nehru and icon of the NAM and a revered figure to this day in both countries. Egyptian-Indian cooperation is multi-dimensional, Galal stressed. "Egypt must learn from India's democratic experience and from its economic deregulation programme." What Galal conveniently decided to ignore was that on the eve of Mubarak's visit to India, parliamentary and municipal elections took place in Indian-administered Kashmir. The subject, one suspects, was too prickly to handle objectively. On the domestic front, the majority of pundits were preoccupied with the announcement about the launching of the so- called "State-Owned Asset Management Programme" which will entitle every Egyptian 21 years old and over to some free shares in a number of state-owned companies. Writing in the daily independent Al-Masry Al-Yom, Diaa Rashwan argued that "the launching of this programme... means that the privatisation policies adopted by successive governments of the ruling National Democratic Party failed. "The policy-makers who formulated this programme want to place the responsibility of selling the rest of state-owned assets on the shoulders of Egyptian citizens, thus absolving themselves of responsibility or accountability." Rashwan and a host of other commentators saw an unmistakable link between the project and the rising star of Gamal Mubarak. "The programme comes within the context of a series of moves taken by the ruling party, led by the son of the president, aimed at giving the impression that he is keen to reform the miserable social and economic conditions of the Egyptians," Rashwan explained. "And, by presenting him as a social, economic saviour, this programme is the culmination of a political propaganda for the son of the president aimed at helping him snatch the top office." Rashwan added, "the project is an opportunistic manoeuvre designed to fill the wide gap between the majority of Egyptians and the son of the president... by trying to use it as a tool to create a popular base for him that could help him in overcoming many obstacles on his way to achieving his dream of becoming the next president." In much the same vein, the distinguished columnist Salama Ahmed Salama, writing in Al-Ahram, was also harshly critical of the programme. "The programme excludes the most important sources of wealth in Egypt: plots of land which are currently looted, oil and minerals, the Suez Canal and telecommunication companies," Salama argued. "The shares of these companies will soon be transferred to the pockets of business tycoons once ordinary citizens decide to get rid of them." The veteran writer did not rule out the possibility that the programme was burdened with political motives. "Will this project lead to real justice in the distribution of incomes and improving the living conditions of the people? Or will it be a political trick aimed at distracting the people's attention from drastic future [political] changes, given that the programme will start or end in parallel with the coming parliamentary and presidential elections?" Be that as it may, editor-in-chief of the independent weekly Sawt Al-Umma Abdel-Halim Qandil harshly criticised the new programme. "The government knows very well that the so-called shares of ordinary citizens in public companies will end in the hands of the stock exchange tycoons who will be ready to swallow them." Qandil, a vehement critic of the NDP, also believes that there are political motives behind the launching of this project. "Every Egyptian will be given LE400 worth of shares in exchange for keeping silent when the bequeathing of the presidency takes place," he argued. Writing in the weekly opposition Al-Arabi, economist Ahmed El-Sayed El-Naggar argued that "the asset management programme is meant to use ordinary citizens as a means to privatise the public sector at the cheapest prices. "Limiting the distribution of shares to citizens who are 21 or over is a discriminatory action that deprives those below this age of their rights in public assets." Writing in the daily liberal-leaning Nahdet Masr, Mohamed El-Shabba argues that "like millions of Egyptians, I don't understand this programme. I also believe that one of the main goals of this programme is to remain vague and beyond our understanding." He added that the project "was meant to enhance the image of random privatisation and in order that the opposition stops saying that the government is selling the public sector to foreigners." El-Shabba held the view that "people's unawareness about trading in shares will result in shares ending in the pockets of a group of speculators and brokers who know the secrets of this trade." He concluded that "the country is in dire need of a revolution in production, industry and agriculture that will result in real money going to people." This is a controversial topic that is likely to be debated in the press for some time to come. Once again, what is widely seen by Egyptian commentators as anachronistic Saudi laws hit the headlines. The ruling issued by a Saudi court lashing two Egyptian doctors in Saudi Arabia provoked pundits back home. Writing in Sawt Al-Umma, Rifaat Sayed Ahmed wondered "Why do [the Saudis] whip us?" He provided this answer: "The Saudis have entertained hatred towards the Egyptians since they were defeated at the hands of the founder of modern Egypt Mohamed Ali," he argued. However, the writer concluded, "the Egyptian government is responsible for protecting the dignity of Egyptians abroad." In other words, there is no point in demanding that foreign countries respect Egyptian nationals if they are not treated with respect in their own homeland.
