The claims by the Egyptian revolution of 2011 about a secret fortune of Hosni Mubarak's family that may amount to 70 billion dollars, is reminiscent of the 1789 French Revolution claim that Marie Antoinette said “Let them eat cake”. There is a consensus among historians that the Queen of France, who was executed by the French Revolution following the execution of her husband Louis XVI, did not utter those words, which now go hand in hand with her name (when she was told that the French people cannot find any more bread to eat). Today, I see a protester in Tahrir Square with a sign that says, “Before stepping down we want the 70 billion dollars”, and also read the same figure in the most prominent and most credible newspapers around the world, and I remember Marie Antoinette. I say in the clearest possible terms, “There isn't 70 billion dollars”. I also add that even if the figure was one billion dollars, then its origin must be investigated nonetheless. I also say in the same clear terms that there indeed was corruption, but that most of it and the most significant of it were perpetrated by men in power around the president, and not the president's family itself. At any rate, the 70 billion dollar figure is too surreal. I read the ‘seventy billion' figure for the first time in a news story published by The Guardian on the fourth of February, which said that the wealth of Mubarak's family may well amount to 70 billion dollars, and quoted other details from the Arab newspaper Al-Akhbar. It was unlikely that this was the Egyptian Al-Akhbar which supported the regime at the time, and this was before I read a story in the Lebanese Al-Akhbar on 7/2/2011, entitled “The Mubarak Family Fortune Is Nearly 70 billion Dollars”. I trust Al-Akhbar when it comes to some Lebanese issues, or Iranian issues, since it is a Lebanese newspaper that supports Hezbollah and Iran. However, it is impossible for Al-Akhbar to know something about Egypt that the people of Egypt themselves do not know. Further, its news story published on the seventh of February quoted the Algerian newspaper Al-Khabar from last year, or in other words, from the time of the infamous football match…which means that what the entire media of the world missed, was uncovered by an Algerian newspaper no less. Then we encounter impossibilities as I read a story published by Al-Nahar – which is different from the known major Lebanese newspaper. This Al-Nahar is Algerian. It claimed that Mubarak, after a year from taking office, moved 19 thousand and a half tons of platinum and its derivatives to a Swiss bank, worth 14.9 billion dollars. I say that there aren't 19 thousand tons of platinum, not even 19 tons, but just a football match and news that defy logic. Then I read the following: - The New York Times published a story under the title of “Mubarak Family Riches Attract New Focus”, written by three of its most prominent reporters who were assisted by two others mentioned at the end of the story. The five said that estimates of the Mubarak family fortune vary greatly between 70 billion and 2 billion dollars. The discrepancy is indeed large. There is a difference of 68 billion dollars between the two figures, i.e. the gross income of a major oil producing country. - The Washington Post also spoke of rumors that the Mubarak family fortune is somewhere between 40 and 70 billion dollars. At least, the difference here has shrunk to 30 billion “only”. - The website of the major network CBS published two stories about said fortune, one mentioning 70 billion and the other 40 billion. The network reminded us that 40 percent of the Egyptian people live on less than two dollars a day. - The Seattle Times in Canada also focused on the subject and spoke of 70 billion or 3 to 2 billion. - The Financial Times, -and I trust its numbers-, said that the highest figure mentioned by the protestors is 70 billion, but that bankers say it is closer to being 3 billion. - Antiwar.com, a credible website that defends Arabs and Muslims, pointed out to 70 billion dollars, 35 billion, and also 3 billion. The above was the international media quoting an Algerian newspaper or an unknown website. As I write about Egypt, I record that there is corruption, even if the economy has improved: While the economy had improved greatly under the government of Ahmed Nazif, it did not benefit the poorer segments, and remained confined within a particulate caste below which it did not spread. Today, we hear that the military council is ‘shocked' by the sheer magnitude of corruption. I have confidence in the Egyptian judiciary, which had famous confrontations with the Mubarak regime. This confidence prompts me to expect the acquittal of Rachid Mohamed Rachid, Minister of Trade and Industry, who refused to stay in his post under Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq, and refused President Mubarak's direct request to do so. He left Egypt surrounded by security officers with his family to facilitate his departure at the crowded airport, and travelled with his family to Dubai. This is while his sister Hasna travelled with the children and grandchildren to London. He was shocked the next day to learn that his assets were frozen when the Public Prosecutor received two complaints against him that had no signatures. This is a ‘precautionary' measure as they call it in Egypt. While I understand what that means, I only talk about what I know, and I know Rachid Mohamed Rachid before he became minister and afterwards, and know his family. If he is indeed corrupt and is involved in bribery, then there will be no sharif [Honest man] left in Egypt (except Safwat al-Sharif). The Egyptian revolution would not deserve its name if it doesn't hold the corrupt accountable, or if it wrongs the innocent. My confidence in Egypt's judges is high and I accept any verdict issued by them since they have the final say, not I or anybody else. [email protected]
