Interview with Shahid Bolsen | 2016

In his own words, the truth of Shahid Bolson's work in Egypt, his ideologies, political strategies, and why the media has portrayed him as inspiring a wave of violence. Bolson was interviewed by Radha Sterling on the 12/02/2016.

You have been writing about the political situation in Egypt now for around two years. How did you become involved, and why did you decide to focus your work on Egypt?

Well, it's been about three years now, actually. I've been writing ever since my release from prison. I've written about a variety of other topics, but, yes, my focus has been on Egypt. It's a very important country for many reasons. The Arab Spring, the toppling of the robotic regime, democratic elections for the first time in its history, and then a military coup.

It's a remarkable series of events in a very short period of time. The excitement and hope of the Arab Spring created a chance for real change in the country, and that spirit has persisted even under the extreme repression of the last three years. I was concerned even while still in prison that the people would be fixated on superficial political issues and overlook the more fundamentally critical dynamics of economic power that actually hold sway over life in Egypt. Those concerns proved to be justified. So I wanted to do whatever I could to highlight these issues, to raise the alarm on neoliberalism and the overriding power of multinational corporations.

Hamdul Fatah Hasisi is a sort of reincarnation of Augusto Pinochet to me. I've been writing since at least 2003 that The US would likely replicate its Latin American experience of the nineteen seventies and eighties in The Middle East, and that's what I see happening. Egypt is a gateway to the entire Middle East and North Africa. It is of tremendous strategic importance. So I wanted to do everything possible to support the anti coup opposition and help Egypt reclaim the promise of democracy and independence that appeared for the first time with the Arab Spring.

What is your overall impression of the situation there?

My impression was that the military regime installed by the coup was dedicated to the imposition of neoliberal economic policy, that the coup was primarily motivated by the Egyptian army's economic interests and that they would pursue a course that would lead Egypt into debt slavery and profound subordination to multinational corporations and foreign investors, essentially dissolving its sovereignty. I also saw that this was not something anyone seemed to notice. Opposition political parties were paying very little attention to economic issues. The shock doctrine, as Naomi Klein calls it, was being implemented in Egypt quite blatantly, but no one was really aware of it. Because of the autumn spring, there was still a revolutionary spirit and zeal, which I thought could be mobilized to effectively oppose the neoliberal agenda.

What were you trying to achieve with your campaigning?

Well, I don't really see that I was or that I am campaigning. I'm writing, my analysis of the situation in Egypt, trying to raise awareness and, to recommend strategies for popular empowerment and democratic reform, while at the same time trying in Egypt to divert the revolutionary movements away from pursuing a scenario like what happened in Syria. There are a lot of people calling for armed struggle for jihad, a civil war, and I see this as disastrous. What's happening in Egypt and in so many other places is the transfer of power and authority from the state to the private sector. Logically, this should make opposition activists redirect their attention accordingly.

I see the American labor movement as the most useful model in this scenario. This is what I've been advocating, industrial disruption and grassroots organizing of workers and consumers to pressure companies to support democracy and justice in Egypt.

You attracted a large following on social media. What were you trying to inspire your followers to do?

The types of tactics that I have recommended are all standard methods employed by the labor movement, anti globalization activists, and others. Basically, I have advocated disruption of corporate profitability and operational efficiency without bloodshed, without violence. The aim is to increase the cost of doing business with an undemocratic regime, so that multinational corporations will use their unparalleled influence to support the popular will.

I was watching your work from the beginning, and it seemed to be inspiring your followers to act. Did you have any relationship with any groups in Egypt who were actioning your instructions?

Not at all. In fact, no actions I have specifically suggested have ever been carried out in Egypt by anyone. And the actions which the media attributes to my supposed influence were actions that I never recommended at all. The most that can be said is that some groups may possibly have taken note of my writing and my emphasis on the importance of corporate power, and they incorporated that into their own strategies in their own way. But, no, I have no communication with any groups.

I don't belong to any groups, and I have, in fact, written frequently about how group affiliation is actually restricting and counterproductive.

Are you going to continue focusing on Egypt?

On 11/11/2016, the IMF approved a $12,000,000,000 loan to Egypt, its biggest loan ever in the region. It's a twenty year agreement. For me, this is game over for Egypt. The amount of work that the Egyptian people are gonna have to do to confront the austerity program and to reclaim their political independence and economic sovereignty is just overwhelming at this point. There's not much left for me to say there, to be honest.

A basic Google search on your name has come up with a number of results showing that, in fact, you directed Egyptians to target multinationals and were inspiring a wave of violence across Egypt.

Everything that I have written has been with the objective of providing alternatives to violence while offering strategies of resistance against the coup that could potentially advance the demands of the Arab Spring, the demands for freedom, bread, and social justice. Multinational corporations are the most powerful nonstate actors on the global scene and certainly in Egypt. There's no doubt that they possess the economic and political power to pressure policy far more power than the population possesses.

Reports say that you provided targeting information like addresses of companies. Is that true?

Through my public posts, I advised the activists in Egypt to target corporations with the aim of nonviolently pressuring them to democratize their influence. I suggested the names of several companies and provided their addresses, all of which are public knowledge, to facilitate the work of organizers and activists. I don't really see why, that would be controversial. Again, it bears repeating. No company I suggested was ever subsequently targeted in any way, so I'm not sure how it can be claimed, that anyone in Egypt was acting upon my instructions.

There were also reports that you were inspiring actual violence and making social media comments to the effect that loss of life is acceptable toll. I can also see other more in-depth reports that do not attribute a wave of violence to you, but rather a wave of violence against business interests. What do you make of all the press reports?

Businesses have been targeted by terrorists for decades. Whoever plans and carries out these attacks have their own rationales. It's not a new phenomenon in Egypt or anywhere else. This has nothing to do with the ideas and strategies I write about. I have always been quite explicit about avoiding bloodshed and condemning terrorism simply because I write about multinational corporations, and I'm certainly not the only one who does that.

Is it reasonable to attribute any sort of attack against any company to my ideas, particularly when the attack directly contradicts the tactics that I advocate. As for the quote about a price to be paid, that was from a New York Times interview over the phone. It was an answer to a question about property damage, not loss of life. As possible that this was a misunderstanding, I don't really know.

How is it that the press came to make such an error? Was there anything on your social media that was confusing?

The media are always under pressure to produce stories under deadlines, and they tend to approach a story with a preexisting set of assumptions, which they then basically try to substantiate. This causes them to overlook facts that do not support their assumptions.

So what you were inspiring was essentially to disrupt the profits of multinationals to force them to withdraw support for the coup. Is that right?

Yes. Disruption without bloodshed has always been the fundamental concept. As I said, multinational corporations have enormous power. Roughly half of the world's largest economic entities are companies, not states. They are unavoidably political players, either actively or by omission.

We would like to see them use their influence in support of democracy and justice rather than propping up antidemocratic regimes and human rights violators.

I noticed that you advised that they avoided any human casualties by targeting businesses during the night. Correct?

Yes. I do not consider property damage to be violence. I don't accept the concept that a corporate juggernaut is a human being or that profit loss is equivalent to the loss of life. Wherever violence has occurred, I have condemned it regardless of what the target was, and I have tried in every possible way to emphasize the illegitimacy of violence as a tactic.

So overall, your message has been of nonviolence, but a KFC employee was killed as a result of the attacks on corporations. This event, coupled with your comments that loss of life is possible, have basically led to the media assault on you even though you did not order it at all.

I never wrote about KFC at all until after it started to be targeted, and there were a number of nonviolent operations before that tragic incident. When that happened, I condemned it in the strongest possible terms, and I reiterated the importance of preserving people's safety. Whenever any revolutionary group in Egypt undertook any sort of action, I would write about it, assess its strategic value, and suggest alternatives or modifications that might make subsequent actions more effective. I did the same thing with the KFC actions. I've said many times that if it is not possible to target a company without endangering people's safety, then, of course, it should not be targeted unless and until you could find a way to do it safely.

Again, I have never had any direct contact or connection with any of these groups, and I cannot evaluate to what extent, if any, they were influenced by my ideas.

But this has made you almost look like the head of a violent revolt that could be seen as a terrorist group.

No one can honestly say that I have called for or approved of violence or terrorism. Fortunately, all of my writing is public, and anyone can access it. The easiest way to delegitimize an opposition movement or an individual involved in such a movement is to brand them as violent and to label them as a terrorist. This closes the door on any real discussion.

Speaking of which, I have reviewed the website Counter Extremism, an organization that was designed to combat the threat from extremist ideologies and found that you have somehow been included on their Egypt analysis page. Do you think it is accurate of them to describe your work as a different type of jihad?

Insofar as jihad here means a struggle against non Muslims, then no. But insofar as it means a struggle for justice, then yes. And if they are even slightly concerned about preventing violence and terrorism and protecting people's lives and promoting security and stability, they should welcome this different type of jihad because it is a way of struggling for justice and democracy through peaceful means. But, of course, that organization is a money making enterprise with extensive connections to the very corporations I criticize. So it is in their interests to brand this strategy as violent and to manufacture extremism where it does not exist.

The statement that armed resistance is valid both in the religion, in reason, and in international international law is factually accurate. The United Nations upholds the right of armed resistance. This is not controversial. Imagine if there was a military coup in The United States and democracy was suspended or in The UK or anywhere else, and the military regime was taking dictation from a foreign sponsor. Would the American people or the British people have the right to resist through armed struggle?

Okay. NATO expanded the definition of occupation and colonialism to include economic domination. That's not my opinion. It's an official position of NATO. They uphold the right of NATO to intervene militarily in cases where a country has been subjugated economically by another country.

Are the generals of NATO listed as extremists? It's an obvious double standard. Having said that, however, it's all the more inappropriate inappropriate because even though I acknowledge the right of armed resistance, I do not advocate armed resistance. So, yes, it is clearly an agenda based misinterpretation of what I write about. The profound dishonesty about me is disturbing.

On a personal level, obviously, I would love to be able to go home to my country and see my family. Being falsely grouped with extremists and terrorists, while the ideas I advocate are actually intended to direct people away from this sort of thing unfairly prevents me from returning to my country. But on another level, it is disturbing because, as I said, if they were genuinely concerned about security, they would not paint with such a broad brush. They are basically condemning constructive, nonviolent, rational opposition strategies along with destructive, violent, irrational strategies. This is not what you do when you're trying to promote solutions.

They are in the extremism creation business because they wanna sell their software and services to the government, and they do not care about the consequences.

I have seen in your previous writing that you are in fact very anti extremism and are more focused on ensuring that the citizens of a country are not exploited by external vested interests. I have seen people on your Facebook who have called for more violent actions, and I've seen you address them and explain better forms of protest. But you do accept armed resistance and have been opposed to Sisi's appointment. So could you give our followers an overall idea of your beliefs?

Essentially, what I'm interested in is the democratization of corporate influence. What I see is that power and authority have been transferring from the state to the private sector for decades. Consequently, the disparity between rich and poor has been growing exponentially. Wealth inequality is not just about money. It is inequality of power, of representation, of rights, and freedom.

That is unjust, and it is counter to the principles of my religion. It is affecting all of us, Muslims and non Muslims. And I firmly believe that the global dispossessed need to work together to confront this injustice. The obvious political remedy is genuine democracy as a Muslim. I believe in democracy within an Islamic framework.

I think that Islamism is miserably deficient in its intellectual development, and I want to see that improve. And I hope I can contribute to that development. The consent consent of the governed is fundamental, and the right of the people to participate in decisions that impact their lives is fundamental. When policy decisions are being made by unelected, unaccountable people because of their power in the private economy, that nullifies democracy, democracy, and this is something I wanna help change.

Well, I think this can be seen as yet another example of the press getting it wrong and failing in their moral obligation to perform due diligence on the writings that they produce. Unfortunately, even organizations like Counter Extremism Project with all of their government and diplomatic support apparently rely on news articles to form their analysis. I think it is important to address falsehoods like this that could lead to a completely unjust conclusion for which the consequences could be quite extreme.

Thank you.