A “WHITE REVOLUTION” ON THE “DARK CONTINENT”

Mubarak's departure from the peak of political power in Egypt was in no doubt, with two million people in Cairo's Tahrir Square demanding the president's resignation. The idea of overthrowing Hosni Mubarak united the entire camp of the fragmented Egyptian opposition - from pro-Western liberals to radical fundamentalists. The head of state's attempts to delay his departure by promising not to run in September's presidential elections and transferring much of his authority to Vice-President Omar Suleyman, were to no avail. They just infuriated even more the protesters who believed that Mubarak was guilty of establishing an authoritarian and corrupt regime during his 30 year reign.

Nor did it benefit Mubarak to attempt to hold on to power by encouraging action from supporters of the ruling regime who launched an offensive on Tahrir Square out of the blue. Hundreds of victims only led Mubarak to the inevitable decision. In the end, the initiative was taken by the Egyptian army which was until recently the mainstay of Mubarak's rule. In order to avoid even greater casualties and, apparently, angry with the president's desire to hand over power to Omar Suleyman, the leadership of the Egyptian armed forces decided to put a last full stop to the chronicle of Mubarak's government. He resigned and left Cairo for Sharm el-Sheikh. But before his departure, Mubarak handed over authority to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces headed by Defence Minister Field Marshal Muhammad Huseyn Tantawi. The field marshal issued a statement thanking Mubarak for his resignation "in the interests of the citizens of the country", he saluted the "martyrs" killed during the mass clashes and vowed not to usurp power. "The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is not an alternative to the legitimate government that suits the Egyptian people," said Tantawi.

Thus, the Mubarak era in Egypt's history came to an end. But this politician's downfall was pre-determined the day he rose to the country's political Olympus. This was preceded many years before, in 1952, by the coup of a group of Egyptian officers which overthrew King Farouk. Subsequently, Gamal Abdel Nasser began to carry out socialist reforms, siding with the Soviet Union in the Cold War (although Egypt had officially joined the Non-Aligned Movement) and raising the banner of Arab nationalism which targeted mostly Israel, the US's main ally in the Middle East.

Anwar Sadat, who came to power after the death of Nasser, made a drastic change in Egyptian policy. Cairo turned towards Washington, and the people of Egypt, dissatisfied with this development, were subjected to reprisals. This, however, did not bother the US - 'the bastion of world democracy'. In gratitude for the change in the 'Egyptian way', the then US President Richard Nixon gave Egypt one-off assistance, including weapons, worth $ 250 million. Since then, the US has fuelled the Egyptian authorities which became a cornerstone of pro-American policy in the region.

Those policies were inherited by Hosni Mubarak, who came to power after Sadat's assassination by radical Islamists in retaliation for the signing of the Camp David peace agreement with Israel. Not only did Mubarak develop friendly relations with the United States and the 'Zionist regime', he also became a reliable strategic ally of Washington. To ensure its interests against a possible rise to power by Islamists or pro-Soviet leftist circles in Egypt, the latter approved Mubarak's decision to impose a state of emergency. The state of emergency still holds in the 'country of the pharaohs'. Washington, as well as other Western capitals, tried to ignore the fact that the regime was fundamentally contrary to the very essence of democracy. For three long decades, Mubarak's rule was based on bayonets. These bayonets loosened only in January 2011 when the energy of protesters in the 80-million-strong country, inspired by the example of the 'Jasmine Revolution' in Tunisia, spilled out of the bottle in which it had been contained, after being thrown by Mubarak into the ocean of his seemingly boundless reign.

Mubarak has gone. But immediately after this, the question arises - not just in Egypt but in the whole world - what will happen next in the country? How will the Egyptian events affect processes throughout the Islamic world and the most conflict-ridden region of the planet - the Middle East?

How the military elite of Egypt behaves is extremely important - its strong relationship with the United States provided it not only with political, but also financial power in the country. No less decisive will be processes within the opposition forces. It is no longer doubted that the Egyptian Revolution originated with educated youth, mostly non-ideological, who simply unleashed the full force of their displeasure against the corrupt and authoritarian regime, demanding democratic freedoms and improvements in the country's socio-economic situation. The preservation of secular statehood in Egypt will largely depend on what organizational form the activity of intellectuals, who spilled from virtual space into Tahrir Square, will take (if any) in the future. There is a real prospect of Islamic radicals coming to power, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, whose further tactics will also have a considerable impact on the fate of the modern Egyptian Revolution. No matter how obscure the positions of the Islamists appear at the moment, given their growing role in the Egyptian events, many interested countries reacted cautiously to the possibility of Mubarak's departure during the 18 days when there was a question mark over his authority. Actually, the reaction of the international community to what is happening in Egypt is due to the possible directions of further developments in the country.

In this sense, the West's position is noteworthy. Originally, they said that changes in Egypt were necessary, although Mubarak had promoted the interests of the Euro-Atlantic world in the Middle East region for a long time. The US and Europe did not want to look into the eyes of the Egyptians and the whole world as supporters of the dictatorship. But on the other hand, the West insisted, and continues to insist, on a peaceful and stable pace of change. For example, during the Egyptian developments, Barack Obama repeatedly demonstrated an ability to evade direct answers. He made it clear in every possible way: by accepting Mubarak's departure from the political scene, the US does not want him to be replaced by Islamists. Hence, the direct requirement which Washington set to the new government of Egypt - the United States expects it to abide by existing agreements with Israel.

The importance of this question also arises from the reality clearly facing the US and the world - the Islamic world is experiencing a passionate outburst, given which the prospect of Islamists coming to power in several states in the Middle and Near East looks absolutely real. The phantom of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions has already engulfed Algeria, Yemen and Jordan. It is possible that it is now the turn of the Gulf monarchies, considered by many political movements in the Islamic world to be regimes leading an indecent life of luxury which promote only the interests of "enemies of Islam and the Arab nation". It is notable how the authorities in some of these countries reacted to the turmoil in Egypt. In Kuwait, the authorities banned all meetings and processions after Friday prayers and called on citizens "to put national interests above any other consideration". King of Bahrain Hamad Bin Isa al-Khalifa gave 2,700 dollars to every family in the kingdom. His opponents were quick to blame the Bahraini regime for attempting to muffle growing discontent in the country.

Finally, the litmus test in the analysis of possible future scenarios in Egypt is the position of Israel. President Shimon Peres was, perhaps, the only head of state to openly express support for Hosni Mubarak at a time when the people had just started threatening to sweep away the Egyptian dictator. Peres even called on the US to protect Mubarak, warning of the possibility of Islamists coming to power in Egypt. The French newspaper Lib?ration said that "Israel took off its mask of democratic hypocrisy by openly supporting Mubarak."

After Mubarak resigned, there was no official reaction from Tel Aviv. Israeli public radio only reported that the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu notes: "At this point, it is all too complicated, and it is unclear what will happen." Meanwhile, the Israeli media believe that the collapse of the Mubarak regime means the failure of the project under which Israel cooperated with moderate Arab regimes, hoping for their solidarity in confronting Iran. According to Jewish experts, democratization in the Muslim countries of the Middle East can only mean one thing - Islamization.

Well, Egypt, which still exercises the minds of many people in the world with the secrets of its ancient civilization, has presented the world with quite a serious conundrum. Not only the disclosure of the "white spots" of the past, but also the future of the Middle East, and to a large extent, all international stability will depend on its resolution.