By Owei Lakemfa
President Hosni Mubarak has succeeded in postponing his “Day Of Departure”. That was the day set aside by pro-democracy demonstrators in Egypt for him to depart after three decades as president.

His main backer, the United States (US)was prepared in case its most trusted crony in the region had to leave or flee. After many decades of shoring up dictators and mass murders in the Third  World, the Americans have come to learn that when the people are angry and erupt, as they are doing in Egypt, it is better to prepare for evacuation, or what the Barack  Obama administration euphemistically called “Orderly Transition”.

The US experiences had been quite bitter when its puppets are faced with mass revolt; from President  Lon Nol in Cambodia, to the Shah of Iran, through Ferdinand Edralin Marcos in Philippine to Baby Doc in  Haiti.

The Orderly Transition anthem of the US in Egypt is deliberately ambiguous; although transition ordinarily means  change, a movement from one state or stage to another, for the Americans, it means a reform within the context of a Mubarak presidency. That is a change that may not include the departure of Mubarak.

Orderly Transition is also a safety valve for the Americans who in the event of Mubarak’s fall, can claim that it had asked for ‘transition’.  Yes, Obama said he talked to Mubarak, but what exactly did he tell the dictator? The American administration cannot identify publicly with the brutal regime or appear indifferent to the demonstrable yearnings of Egyptians, so it takes cover in ambiguity.

It appears that the Mubarak thugs on the streets of Cairo did not understand this, hence their condemnation of the US for allegedly backing the anti- Mubarak protesters. America fears change in Egypt so it had for decades, turned a blind eye to the brutal regime. Apart from Mubarak being faithful, Americans fear that the Muslim Brotherhood which had taken on Mubarak’s predecessors, Generals Gamal Nasser and Anwar Sadat, might come to power and produce a pro-Al Qeada or Iranian-style administration.

Mubarak understands his Washinton bosses and has therefore commenced the “Orderly Transition” by dissolving government and replacing it with a new one made up of another set of  cronies. This is the “Orderly Transition”.  With this, Mubarak hopes to ride the storm until September 2011 when he promises  not to seek re- election, as if he had been elected on the previous occasions.

But why won’t he step down now and  allow an independent  government of national unity to steer the country towards democratic elections? Mubarak cries that although he is “fed up” with being in power, there will be chaos if he leaves. It is just possible that he is under the grand illusion that without him and his guiding arm, Egypt will descend into chaos.

Another interesting issue is the role of the Army; it has claimed neutrality in the crisis.  How can people who have sworn to defend their country claim to be neutral in these circumstances?

Clearly, the hierarchy  of the Egyptian Armed Forces is on the side of Mubarak and this would be made clear if the pro- democracy activists move out of the Revolution Square to take over the presidency. The protests, like waves, will wane and resurge, but  may ultimately result in no fundamental changes if it does not try to seize power from a deadly, deaf and dumb dictatorship.

Britain’s contribution to the issue is that there should be “smooth transition” and “democratic elections”. If it knew that for 30 or more years there had been no democratic elections in Egypt, why has it not said so and demanded democratic elections all along? It is the same attitude as America; allow democratic elections at home  and tolerate dictators in the under developed countries, provided they are allies or puppets.

In the early 1970s, the American puppet in Cambodia was General Lon Nol. In 1970  he had overthrown the government headed by Prince Norodom Sihanouk. Nol remained loyal even when the Americans turned his country into killing fields, carrying out horrific massacres, including carpet bombing using chemical bombs.  But when in 1975 the insurgency got near the capital, the general broke and ran only to appear in Hawaii and later, California.

One of the most dramatic departures is that of the very powerful Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran. By 1979 there were renewed mass protests that he abdicate after 38 years in power. When the protests intensified, he sent armoured cars into the streets to grind protesters  into the tar. With  US backing, he felt impregnable. By the time  he and his bosses realised that his time was up, it was almost too late; he barely had time to make it to the airport with his family and supporters, take command of the presidential aircraft and fly out of the country.

He went to Morocco and the Bahamas and then in October 1979, went to the US for medical treatment. The trip to America led to Iranians demand that he be extradited which of course the Americans rejected. This led to students seizing the US Embassy in Tehran and holding its diplomats hostage. The Americans pushed the Shah out of their country to Panama, he ended up in Cairo where he died  on July 27, 1980.

Another day of departure occurred in February 1986 when the US sent its Air Force  to pluck out a trusted ally, Claude Duvalier, alias Baby Doc in Haiti. He was flown with his family to exile in France.

Ferdinand Edralin Marcos was president of the Philippine for over two decades repressing the populace, looting the country, killing, maiming and rigging elections. In 1986, he rigged elections as usual, but was challenged by opposition leader, Corazon Aquino. Marcus swore himself into office but within nine hours, was on the run. The US Air Force air lifted Marcos, his wife, Imelda, three children, three grand-children and 81 others to Hawaii.

Doubtlessly, there will be many more days of departure, including for Mubarak, who missed the last departure.