Mubarak drags Egypt into the abyss

After warning in his speech last night that the opposition is attempting to drag the country into violence and anarchy, Mubarak has set out today to do just that. After a week of peaceful protests and the blossoming of civil society – with anti-government protesters taking responsibility for civic duties such as cleaning the streets - it appears by all independent accounts that Mubarak has decided to send his National Democratic Party thugs into Tahrir Square in an attempt to break up the demonstrations and prove that only he has the power to bring order, or disorder.

According to most independent eye-witness reports, the pro-Mubarak supporters were bussed into Cairo and came prepared for violence, carrying clubs, knives and other small weapons, indicating that the violence was clearly orchestrated in an attempt to stamp out the protests. Journalists and others have also recognised some of the pro-Mubarak supporters as plain clothed policemen. It is uncertain what role the military has played here, but it has so far not intervened. This appears to indicate that the generals are happy to let this situation continue and there have been some accusations that the military actually facilitated the entry of the pro-Mubarak forces into the square.

This appears to be a final throw of the dice by Mubarak to create as much disorder as possible and sow fear among the Egyptian population in a desperate attempt to hold on to power. It is unlikely to work. International condemnation at the turn of events is beginning to build momentum. The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and others have condemned the use of violence against peaceful protesters. Yet the US State Department is still calling on all sides “to show restraint and avoid violence”, adding that “Egypt's path to democratic change must be peaceful.” But it was peaceful until Mubarak’s thugs attacked the protesters. What has to happen before the US finally reins in Mubarak and calls for him to go?

Egypt: Mubarak is going .... but when?

President Husni Mubarak is nothing if not defiant. Last night he yet again portrayed himself as the father of the nation and the bulwark against chaos and disorder. The speech was a last ditch attempt by the dictator to sow fear among the general population and take the sting out of the opposition, which he accused of fermenting anarchy and of engaging in looting and violence. According to the patriarch Mubarak, only he has the ability to steer Egypt through this time of crisis.

Apart from the blatant untruths in the speech - it has been Mubarak's own security forces that have been responsible for most of the violence - the patronising tone and Mubarak's defiance are likely to backfire and merely energise the opposition. Mubarak's decision not to stand for reelection will do nothing to reduce tensions, and will be viewed by many as a trick to cling on to power. Furthermore, it appears that even this announcement came as a result of considerable behind-the-scenes diplomatic pressure from the United States, rather than from a genuine understanding of the situation by Mubarak or a commitment to real change.

It is difficult to see how Mubarak can stay in power for eight months. As the former neo-conservative Bush official, Elliot Abrams, put it: "If he'd made this announcement a week ago, much less a month or two months ago, this whole crisis would never have happened. But to do it now, I think he's got to step down." And this view appears to be gaining traction with the Obama administration, which has once again been playing catch-up and changing its tone in response to fast moving developments. Last night Obama said that change should begin "now". However, it is far from certain what the US President means by this. Does he mean that Mubarak should step aside immediately? or that he should begin implementing constitutional reforms without delay? I get the impression the US was hoping that the latter would be enough but this is now looking very unlikely.

The US administration's primary main concern here is, of course, regional stability, intelligence gathering, protecting the flow of goods through Suez and securing the Egyptian border with Israel (Gaza) against arms trafficking etc ... But propping up Mubarak for another eight months is not going to create stability. Already, we are witnessing clashes between pro-Mubarak supporters and opposition demonstrators. The demonstrations themselves are likely to escalate further as Mubarak attempts to stay put, with a planned march on the presidential palace planned for Friday.

If this march goes ahead - or is prevented by the army or the Republican Guard, the situation could quickly spiral out of control into violence and chaos. Also, the longer the demonstrations drag on, the more chance there is that they will spread to other regional states (which they already have). Mubarak and those around him may also revert to sabotage tactics by using the security services and party apparatchiks to cause chaos. There are reports this is already taking place.

What is baffling here is that the US State Department does not appear to have had a contingency plan for a this type of scenario, despite the fact that they have had thirty years to draw one up. And despite the fact that the ailing president - who was due for reelection in September- is 82 years old and up until last week had not designated a successor. At present the State Department is still deliberating what to do about the situation. Let's hope they come up with some answers soon.