Reuters served as a channel for the UK Foreign Office to covertly fund an Egyptian outlet that clamored for the overthrow of the country’s first democratically elected leader, leaked documents show.
by Kit Klarenberg
Part 4 - Aswat Masriya whitewashes reality of Sisi’s Egypt
Neither Aswat Masriya nor Reuters ever mentioned these bombshell disclosures. The former was also by-and-large silent when in August 2013, Egyptian security forces under Sisi’s command brutally crushed a protest in Rabaa al-Adawiya Square in Cairo, slaughtering at least 817 people. Human Rights Watch dubbed the bloodshed “perhaps the largest mass killing of protesters on a single day in modern history.”
“Using armoured personnel carriers, bulldozers, ground forces and snipers, police and army personnel attacked the makeshift protest camp and gunned down protesters,” the organization recorded.
Nonetheless, Aswat Masriya published an official investigation into the massacre which blamed the gross death toll on protesters themselves, claiming they “initiated” attacks on security forces. Amnesty International’s contention that the probe was a concerted whitewash, specifically set up to shield security forces from censure, was mysteriously omitted from its coverage.
“Using armoured personnel carriers, bulldozers, ground forces and snipers, police and army personnel attacked the makeshift protest camp and gunned down protesters,” the organization recorded.
Nonetheless, Aswat Masriya published an official investigation into the massacre which blamed the gross death toll on protesters themselves, claiming they “initiated” attacks on security forces. Amnesty International’s contention that the probe was a concerted whitewash, specifically set up to shield security forces from censure, was mysteriously omitted from its coverage.
Perhaps predictably, the outlet uncritically reported Sisi’s “landslide” election victory in May 2014, when he the army general received 96.91% of the vote, in no small part due to most other candidates either dropping out of the race, or being jailed before polling day.
Cairo had already slipped back into dictatorship by that time, and would only fall further into autocracy in the years to come. Not a trace of this reality would ever be reflected on the pages of Aswat Masriya, though. Fittingly, in November 2016 the publication uncritically reported Sisi explaining to US lawmakers that human rights in Egypt should not be perceived from “a Western perspective,” due to “differences in challenges and local and regional circumstances.”
Cairo had already slipped back into dictatorship by that time, and would only fall further into autocracy in the years to come. Not a trace of this reality would ever be reflected on the pages of Aswat Masriya, though. Fittingly, in November 2016 the publication uncritically reported Sisi explaining to US lawmakers that human rights in Egypt should not be perceived from “a Western perspective,” due to “differences in challenges and local and regional circumstances.”
The situation in Egypt had grown so dire by 2017 that the British Foreign Office could no longer ignore it. In February of that year, London designated Cairo a “human rights priority country.” An accompanying factsheet noted that “reports of torture, police brutality, and forced disappearance” had ratcheted in recent years, and so too had restrictions “on civil society” and “freedom of expression,” while “a number of prominent human rights defenders were banned from travelling.”
A month later, Aswat Masriya closed its doors permanently. An accompanying press release noted that TRF was unable to “find a sustainable source of financing for the platform.” It is uncertain why the British stopped supporting the outlet, although it had clearly fulfilled its purpose of helping ensure a suitably malleable, friendly government was safely installed in Cairo, and was likely surplus to requirements as a result.
A month later, Aswat Masriya closed its doors permanently. An accompanying press release noted that TRF was unable to “find a sustainable source of financing for the platform.” It is uncertain why the British stopped supporting the outlet, although it had clearly fulfilled its purpose of helping ensure a suitably malleable, friendly government was safely installed in Cairo, and was likely surplus to requirements as a result.
When the UK media exposed Reuters’ clandestine Cold War-era relationship with British intelligence in January 2020, a spokesperson for the news agency claimed such an “arrangement” was “not in keeping with our Trust Principles” and “we would not do this today.”
“Reuters receives no government funding, supplying independent, unbiased news in every part of the world,” they added.
What the Reuters flack neglected to acknowledge was that only three years before, his organization still served as a financial channel for the Foreign Office to an Egyptian outlet which incited the overthrow of the country’s first democratically elected government. Whether the London-based media giant is involved in similarly covert, state-backed machinations today is anyone’s guess.
“Reuters receives no government funding, supplying independent, unbiased news in every part of the world,” they added.
What the Reuters flack neglected to acknowledge was that only three years before, his organization still served as a financial channel for the Foreign Office to an Egyptian outlet which incited the overthrow of the country’s first democratically elected government. Whether the London-based media giant is involved in similarly covert, state-backed machinations today is anyone’s guess.
***
Comments
Post a Comment