The Washington Post reports: Egypt’s most powerful Islamist organization on Saturday nominated one of its members for president, breaking a promise that it would not enter the race and angering critics who called the decision an attempt to control the country.

The Muslim Brotherhood announced at a news conference that Khairat el-Shater, the group’s top financier and arguably its most influential member, would be the candidate of its political wing, as a rift grows between the Islamist group and the country’s ruling military leaders.

The group recently said it was considering fielding a candidate in the May election only because it was concerned that former regime figures backed by the ruling military council would win if it did not.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the most powerful political force in Egypt, and its political wing won nearly half the seats in the newly elected parliament. But at least two other prominent Islamists are running for president, and the Brotherhood’s move could split the vote.

Since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak more than a year ago, the Brotherhood had said it would not nominate a candidate. When a progressive member of the organization, Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, announced his intent to run last year, he was ousted from the group for breaking the rules.

Critics of the Brotherhood and some within its ranks said that nominating Shater, a business tycoon and the group’s top strategist, would chip away at the organization’s credibility.

Analysts also said that the move is potentially dangerous for the Brotherhood. The next year will be a difficult period of transition as Egypt moves from military to civilian rule, and the economy has continued to stagger. If Shater becomes president, the Brotherhood could be blamed for the growing economic woes and other problems.

“Everything is risky for them now,” said Issandr El Amrani, a prominent Cairo-based blogger and analyst. “I suspect they decided to do this because they want to maximize their ability to govern and were unable to find either a consensus candidate or a trusted proxy.”

Ahram Online reports: On his official twitter account, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei stated on Saturday “Egyptians sacrificed their lives for freedom and dignity not for military or religious authoritarianism nor for tyranny of any one majority. It is heartbreaking…”

ElBaradei’s comments came amidst rising conflict between the ruling military council, the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated parliament, and liberal forces over the formation of the constituent assembly set to draft Egypt’s new constitution.

In the last seven days, more than 24 of the elected assembly members have declared they will be resigning from the assembly to protest what they have called Islamist domination of the body.

Several demonstrations have also taken place last week, and protesters claimed that the constituent assembly members will only be approving a constitution already drafted in an agreement between the Muslim Brotherhood and the ruling military council.

The New York Times reports: Egypt will begin criminal proceedings on Friday against 19 Americans and two dozen others in a politically charged investigation into the foreign financing of nonprofit groups that has plunged relations between the United States and Egypt to their lowest point in three decades, state news media reported Saturday.

The trial escalates a confrontation that has shaken the 30-year alliance between Cairo and Washington, a cornerstone of the American-backed regional order since the Camp David accords were signed in 1978. American officials have said the prosecution jeopardizes the disbursement of more than $1.5 billion in foreign aid to Egypt, the bulk of which is assistance to the military, which has governed the country since the ouster of the longtime leader Hosni Mubarak a year ago.

The 43 defendants have been charged with operating local offices of international organizations without the requisite licenses and illegally receiving foreign funds, state news media reported.

The American defendants work for four United States-based groups, two of which, the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute, are chartered as democracy-building organizations and have close ties to leaders in the United States Congress. The other two organizations are Freedom House and the International Center for Journalists.

The state news media report said that the groups’ operations “infringe on Egyptian sovereignty.”

Seven of the 19 Americans are in Egypt and have been barred by the government from leaving.

Nathan J Brown writes: As Egypt’s parliament prepares to designate the drafters of a new constitution, the country is embarking on an unprecedented and difficult journey. This is not the first time a constitution has been written for Egypt but it is the first time so many Egyptians will be focused on writing one. Previous constitutions have been authored by small committees serving existing rulers; now a wide range of voices insist on being heard.

In the year since the vast celebration in Tahrir Square marking Mubarak’s departure, Egyptians have come to discover how many differences they harbour. Class, faith, degree of religiosity, ideology and gender lead them to see their society very differently and develop deeply contrasting ideas about the best political course for the country. Egyptians continue to demand that the military leave politics; others show dismay at the disruption that the revolution has brought to Egyptian society; some relish the opportunity to implant Islamic practices more deeply in daily life; others fear that pockets of secularist society will be endangered.

And all these various orientations must now work together to build the fundamental structures of political life by writing a constitution. This will hardly be Egypt’s first such document, but all past efforts have been spearheaded by rulers or narrow elites surrounding them. For the first time, a diverse and politicised society will be watching and participating in setting down the basic rules of politics. What will they need to do to accomplish this goal in a democratic, just, and stable manner?

Most international eyes – and many domestic ones – will go straight to the clauses that concern religion. Since 1980, Egyptians have been governed by a clause that proclaims “the principles of the Islamic sharia are the main source of legislation”. Debate has already begun on whether to modify, tighten, or loosen that phrase. But for all the emotion that such debate generates, the real focus of attention should be directed elsewhere. What so many observers miss is that these formulas are extremely general. Whatever specific meaning they carry will rest not so much on what the words say as on who is empowered to interpret and implement them.

The New York Times reports: The Muslim Brotherhood demanded Thursday that Egypt’s military rulers cede control of the government, stepping closer to a long-anticipated confrontation between the ruling generals and the Islamist-dominated Parliament.

In a statement on its Web site and a television interview with one of its senior leaders, the Brotherhood called for the military to allow the replacement of the current prime minister and cabinet with a new coalition government formed by Parliament, which would amount to an immediate handover of power.

The Brotherhood, the formerly outlawed Islamist group, now dominates Parliament. It had previously said it was content to wait until June, when the generals had said they would hand over the power they seized at the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak last year. And signs were accumulating of a general accord between the military and the Brotherhood over the terms of a new constitution expected to be ratified before the handover. The Brotherhood’s shift comes on the eve of the Feb. 11 anniversary of Mr. Mubarak’s downfall, when other activists around the country have called for a general strike to demand the end of military rule — a call the Brotherhood has previously resisted.

But the group is also changing its position at a time when the military-controlled government appears overwhelmed by domestic and foreign crises, including a deadly soccer riot last week followed by five days of violent protests, a standoff with Washington that has imperiled billions of dollars in United States aid and international loans, and an economy teetering on collapse.

“We must start the formation of a coalition government immediately, to deal in particular with the economic situation and the state of lawlessness in this homeland,” Khairat el Shater, deputy to the Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide and one of its most influential figures, said in the online statement, which quoted an interview he gave to Al Jazeera.

Jess Hill writes: The violence in Port Said was sudden and barbaric. Minutes after the final whistle blew, the bleacher doors were flung open, and thousands of people stormed the pitch. Witnesses say men in dirty street clothes chased fans of the Al-Ahly team with knives and metal bars, bashing them in the head. One young Al-Ahly fan, dressed in the red-and-white colours of his favourite team, had his eyes gouged out. Two sisters, both just days shy of being married, were killed. The stadium lights were cut, and panicked fans suffocated as they were crushed against locked gates by stampeding crowds.

Seventy-four Egyptians died in Port Said last week. Who is responsible? Why did riot police simply watch on as people were beaten and stabbed? Was it a set-up, planned by the security forces? Are Egypt’s military rulers to blame? Or was it merely permitted by police in revenge against Al-Ahly fans, the Ultras, who played a pivotal role in last year’s uprisings?

A parliamentary fact-finding committee is investigating the deaths, but the results won’t matter. Egyptians all over the country believe the authorities planned it. As far as they’re concerned, the proof is in the eyewitness videos and accounts, and in the precedent: The Ministry of Interior has been torturing and killing Egyptians for decades. For many Egyptians, there’s no reason to believe this would be a step too far.

That’s because essentially the Ministry of Interior is the same institution it was under former President Hosni Mubarak. And while Egyptians still believe that the country’s security forces are capable of planning the massacre of innocent football fans, Egypt has no chance of stability. [Continue reading…]

McClatchy reports: Egypt’s government won’t back off its criminal investigation of American and other civil society workers even if the U.S. withdraws its financial aid, Egypt’s military-appointed prime minister said Wednesday, in a case that could spell the end of one of the United States’ closest Arab alliances.

Prime Minister Kamal el-Ganzouri’s remarks were his first public comment on the brewing diplomatic crisis over Egypt’s prosecution of 43 nongovernmental organization workers focused on democracy-building. At least 16 Americans, including the son of U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, are among those facing charges of illegally receiving foreign funds.

Outraged U.S. lawmakers have vowed to cut Egypt’s annual $1.3 billion military aid package, a move that effectively would end the cozy relationship that the United States and Egypt enjoyed during the 30 years of now-deposed President Hosni Mubarak’s regime. Egyptian officials have said they’re eager to remake the country’s foreign policy, with an emphasis on sovereignty and a respect for popular opinion, though critics say the ruling generals are playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship.

The Guardian reports: Activists and civil society groups in Egypt have reacted with fury to the announcement that 43 NGO workers – including 19 American citizens – will face a criminal trial in what critics of the government say is a politically motivated investigation into the foreign funding of pro-democracy groups.

Judge Ashraf al-Ashmawy confirmed on Monday the case had been referred to the Cairo criminal court, where the NGO workers will face charges of “accepting funds and benefits from an international organisation” to pursue an activity “prohibited by law”.

They are also accused of carrying out “political training programmes”, supporting election campaigns and illegally financing individuals and groups, the judge said in a statement.

Those involved waited in trepidation for further details. “It’s inexplicable,” said Julie Hughes, country director of the National Democratic Institute (NDI). “We don’t even know what the charges are.”

“I’m trying to stay optimistic but I’d be lying if I said this wasn’t stressful on me, the organisation, our families. But I’m proud of the individuals working here. We’ll hang in there.”

Hughes and 18 other Americans – including Sam LaHood, country director of the International Republican Institute and son of the US transport secretary – have been banned from leaving Egypt in relation to the case, which many see as a thinly veiled attack on pro-democracy and human rights organisations.

USA Today adds: Members of Egypt’s newly elected government refused to back off Monday from charges that 19 Americans and several other foreigners are aiding violent protests and will be tried.

Meanwhile, the United States on Monday threatened to cut off $1.5 billion in annual aid to Egypt for what it called an illegitimate crackdown on foreign groups known as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that promote democracy.

“Whoever is operating legally should be fine,” said Sobhy Saleh, whose Freedom and Justice Party is the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, which recently won the majority of seats in the Egyptian parliament. “Whether they are Islamic or not, any NGO should follow the law.”

Saleh said Egypt will not accept any violations of Egyptian law or interference of Egypt sovereignty. Hisham Abo Alnasr, a member of the high council of Egypt’s hard-line al-Nour Party, said that based on documents found during the investigation the Americans “may be considered spies.”

Egypt doesn’t need democracy training from foreigners, Alnasr said. He said the country needs training in literacy, science and health care to help it develop economically.

Steven Cook writes: Egypt’s former ambassador to the United States, Nabil Fahmy, once remarked that the U.S.-Egypt relationship was like “a mature marriage.” It seems that with the trial of 19 Americans and 16 Egyptians and 8 others affiliated with the National Democratic Institute and International Republican Institute, the Egyptians are serving divorce papers. The last four decades have had many highs and quite a few lows, but now it is time to move on. What was once a strategic relationship built on the firm geo-strategic foundations of containing Soviet influence in the Middle East, forging peace between Arabs and Israelis, and helping to ensure the stability of the region is now an unhealthy codependency with no strategic rationale or direction.

The January 25th uprising was bound to alter U.S.-Egypt relations in fundamental ways if only because public sentiment matters more in the new Egypt and Washington is far from popular. Yet events of the last few weeks suggest that the trajectory of the relationship is in steeper decline than anyone expected. The NGO case is wrapped up in layers of resentment relating to Egypt’s history of foreign domination, Egyptian nationalism, and Washington’s determination to spend part of its aid package on programs that support democratic change. In the psycho-drama that bilateral relations have become, both the Egyptians and Americans want U.S. assistance to continue to flow, but for all the wrong reasons. The aid is good for Egypt’s leaders because it provides them with an opportunity to position themselves as good nationalists even though they have been feeding at the trough of international aid for many years. For Washington, the aid is the only leverage the United States has to try to influence Egyptian behavior and even though it doesn’t seem to work, lawmakers and officials are loath to give it up.

The Egyptian government in the form of Minister of International Cooperation, Fayza Aboul Naga, rails against American funding of non-governmental organizations, claiming that American money is going to groups that want to undermine the Egyptian government. In its crudest form, Naga’s campaign against the United States, USAID, the Middle East Partnership Initiative, and NGOs, suggests that a “foreign hand” is seeking to bring Egypt to its knees. The claim seems laughable, especially since the same foreign hand doles out $1.3 billion a year to the Egyptian armed forces (word is that Aboul Naga is close to Field Marshal Tantawi) and Aboul Naga is supposed to be the Minister of International Cooperation. If the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and the transitional cabinet are truly interested in paving the way for a democratic Egypt, shouldn’t they welcome Washington’s help? Yet as in all cases domestic politics trumps foreign policy and Aboul Naga and her military masters have a political interest in playing on the xenophobic tendencies in Egyptian society to undermine NGOs that are working toward a new, more democratic political order—precisely the opposite of what the SCAF wants.

I say we oblige Aboul Naga and wind down the aid program—including military assistance—as soon as practical. It’s hard to run against the “foreign hand” if there is no foreign hand.

Reuters reports: Protesters demanding a swift presidential election and an early handover of power by the army threw stones at police guarding the Egyptian interior ministry on Sunday and were forced back with volleys of teargas.

It was the fourth day of clashes outside the ministry, during which seven people have died. Protesters accuse the ministry of failing to prevent the deaths last week of 74 people after a football match in Port Said. Five more people have died in Suez.

Some protesters believe that remnants of the Mubarak regime were behind the violence, which was triggered by a pitch invasion after a football match between Al Ahly and Al Masri on Wednesday. They see it as part of a plot to create chaos in an attempt by the old guard to reassert its influence.

Political figures and a civilian advisory body to the military have suggested bringing the presidential vote forward to April or May, from the June date foreseen in the transition timetable of the army, which took power after former president Hosni Mubarak quit.

Police and protesters, some waving Al Ahly flags, threw stones at each other and police fired volleys of teargas to push the lines of mostly young protesters back from the ministry building on Sunday.

The Associated Press reports: Egyptians ranging from football fans to MPs have blamed the military rulers for the bloody post-match riot that left scores of people dead.

Police were criticised for failing to stop the violence on Wednesday night which led to a crush in a narrow exit at the stadium in Port Said, north of the capital, Cairo.

A network of football fans known as Ultras vowed to exact revenge, accusing the police of intentionally letting rival fans attack them because they have been at the forefront of pro-democracry protests over the past year, first against Hosni Mubarak and now the military.

Thousands of protesters converged on Cairo’s Tahrir Square – the epicentre of the uprising that ousted the Egyptian president last year – carrying the red flag of the city’s Al Ahly football club and the national banner. They then marched to the nearby interior ministry to protest against the police inaction and call for retribution for the 74 people who died in the world’s most deadly football violence in 15 years.

The protesters raised flags of Al Ahly and Zamalek, a rival Cairo club, and Egyptian flags. Some held black banners reading: “Mourning.”