Sunday, April 10, 2016

Tiran and Sanafir Islands for Selling or for National Security

Last Thursday and for five-days, King Salman Bin Abdel Aziz of Saudi Arabia visited Egypt for mutual cooperation between Egypt and his country in different fields of development. On the investment side, the CEO of Saudi Egyptian Construction Company (SECON), Darwish Hassanin declared that about 40 percent of the projects in the New Cairo Capital like residential apartments, commercial services, sports club and green areas will be built on 86 acres by the second quarter of this year (Daily News, SECON CEO). And another project Riyadh SECON will contribute is the New Assiut media city that will raise the wages of media earners. A total of 17 agreements are signed during this bilateral deals’ visit.      
On the other hand, building a new bridge between Egyptian lands and Saudi Arabia using Tiran and Sanafir islands opened new discussions and retrieved back the history of Sykes-Pico Agreement between Britain and France of Israel. The Sykes-Pico Agreement was secretly signed after World War I between Britain and French government to determine the controlled partitions of Ottoman Empire to both powers in 1916 (Jewish Virtual Library). This two islands were under the international control of the two powers and the Arabs.   
From this point, according to Egypt Independent “official sources reports that the Egyptian President, El-Sisi proposed that the bridge to be named The King Salman and Sykes-Pico Bridge (Egypt Independent, bridge). “The 23 kilometer-long bridge will start at Egypt’s Red Sea Island of Tiran then to Ras AlSheikh Hamid in Saudi Arabia via Sanafir Island on the Red Sea” (TheCairo Post). This bridge will join the two countries by road and even the two contents Asia and Africa over water. This opens another discussion about the changing of geographical borders that are designed before in Sykes-Pico Agreement and by uniting the Arab countries away from the foreign control nor the Israeli intimidations.   
Analysts reached a point of the proposed bridge is more likely touching the Israeli national affairs more than Egyptians or Saudi Arabian, because building this bridge will push the Egyptian national security to control the passing of Israeli ships in the Red Sea as it’s their only shipping lane. Today’s feed from different social network websites put another explanation for that “According to Balfour Declaration, Egypt don’t have the authority to put their army on this passing lane,” and fortunately building this bridge will give Egypt the right for military presence. This right will end the last item in 1978 Camp David Accords (Hammouda, Facebook). Hammouda added that there can be another straight line way “via Aqaba bay” to build the bridge, however passing by Tiran Island will make the bridge not a hanging one and this will give Egypt the right to put their security in this place to protect its vital area of national security.       
So, the issue of Egyptian ownership or sovereignty of these two islands is solved, because many give and takes between Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel - referring to Sykes-Pico 1916 Agreement, Balfour 1917 Declaration, and Camp David 1978 Accords – will be ended. And a powerful strategic control will be given to Egypt for saving its vital area of national security. Also the question of; the agreement of Saudi Arabia to build this bridge is simply because their whole country is under the vital area of Egyptian national security as located on the Egyptian territorial water.
“Working will begin by the mid of next year 2013 with budget of three Billion Dollars to build 50 kilometer bridge connecting between Aqaba bay and Tabuk” (El-Watan). This project was entrusted to the Egyptian minister of transportation, Gala Said, ten years ago and recommended by Major General Sameh Seif El Yazal, the Security and strategic expert, to easy the trading between two continents. Adding that passengers will take 20 minutes only in this trip.
                                                  Facebook Page: Alaa Hammouda

Sunday, April 3, 2016

MSA Today. Issue 1

I want to congratulate each and everyone who worked hard for the successful launching of Volume 1. Issue 1.

We will be happy to share your opinions, reporters, photographers, and writers.

Send me on mykamel@msa.eun.eg

Sunday, March 27, 2016

News Framing Theory - Critical Analysis

Article Title: Evolution of News Frames during 2011 Egyptian revolution: Critical discourse analysis of Fox's News and CNN's framing of protesters, Mubarak, and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly
Author: Andrea L. Guzman

Introduction 
The article is a critical discourse analysis for U.S. news organizations (CNN and Fox) framing the key participants of Egyptian revolution in online news content. The critical discourse (quantitative methodological approach) is analyzing how the social power abuse is reproduced and resisted by the text and talks of the political and social context (Dijk, 2010). The author, Guzman, studied the portrayal of how "multiple segments" of Egyptian society - like President Hosni Mubarak and his government, Muslim Brotherhood, and anti-government protesters - enacted and viewed for power during the revolution. It frames the online texts and talks, from the American journalistic ideology, of people who seek democracy ruling including Islam and Muslims as active participants.
This study is both using analytical discourse aligned with framing theory (Reese, 2011); media (CNN & Fox) portrayals selects a certain aspect (Egyptian participants’ online news content) or a reality (Egyptian revolution) and make it salient to examine a particular problem (mis-reporting of U.S. news organization to Middle East news).            

Author’s Claims
Guzman claimed that American media didn’t play a direct role in the Egyptian revolution, but they were interested to explain the events more clearly to the American audience. This study is specially designed to show how U.S. news created the picture of Egyptians’ uprising wrongly, because they considered Egyptian friends and report them in a good frame if they are pro-U.S. and if not the face of “War on Terror” appears.      
Also, Guzman claimed that the introduction of social media as a platform for news made framing more difficult for scholars to define, because independent news organizations reports the conflicts, local news organizations report about the governmental rulers, international news organizations focuses on their enemies, and the social media get all those possible and can be framed on social networks through hashtags.  

Findings
1.      CNN and Fox’s media coverage of Mubarak, Muslims’ Brotherhood and anti-governmental protesters is supporting who is allied with U.S. and who is its enemy.
2.      Media frames and U.S. media portrayal of Middle East and African region is dynamic and static, because frames change with the shift of focus from group to another. And it is static too as U.S. based its report upon the degree of involvement in the event.
3.      U.S. portrayal of the anti-government protester that the right will be in their hands and they will take in charge, shift after 4 years when the military gained power after Morsy.

Criticism
The idea of framing any of the Egyptian revolution participants as enemies or allies depended on the idea of “Orientalist Stereotypes.” And it is also affected by the U.S. human interest.
Guzman realized how online news content shared by Egyptians in the revolution changed the way of glocalized spread of information. And the U.S. news organizations were very behind focusing all their reports on Arab as terrorist due to September 2011 events. But what actually happened from the author view is that U.S. news organizations got affected by the outcomes of the Egyptian revolution participants’ contribution.    
So, the lack of real news sources can shift the reality of situations and blurring a real reporting for the current events, resulting in using the history as a source of information and the drama as the strategy of writing it.
Fox news coverage for Muslims’ Brotherhood was firstly trying to report how the White house is balancing between Mubarak and anti-government protesters. But it turned finally to use Bush-era opinions about Muslims’ Brotherhood and mixing it with Obama’s resulted in blurring the real situation in the Egyptian revolution. So, media portrayed frames of U.S. is both dynamic and static, according to Guzman.

References
Ayish, Muhammad. "TELEVISION REALITY SHOWS IN THE ARAB WORLD: The Case for a ''glocalized'' Media Ethics." TELEVISION REALITY SHOWS IN THE ARAB WORLD The Case for a ''glocalized'' Media Ethics. 2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.
Dijk, Teun A Van. "Critical Discourse Analysis." (2010): Discourse in Society. Teun Dijk, Web. 24 Feb. 2016. <http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20discourse%20analysis.pdf>.
Guzman, A. L. "Evolution of News Frames During the 2011 Egyptian Revolution: Critical Discourse Analysis of Fox News's and CNN's Framing of Protesters, Mubarak, and the Muslim Brotherhood." Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly (2015): Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. Web. <http://jmq.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/09/25/1077699015606677.abstract?rss=1>.
Reese, S. D. (2001). Prologue. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing
public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 7-31).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.