>>Paul Mason: Bassem Youssef, it struck me
while you were talking that indeed you have
leveraged the power of new technology and
social media.
I've been -- every revolutionary I meet says
to me, "Look, don't overestimate the power
of technology.
This is not really technology.
It's about Oz, it's about God, or it's about
democracy," but really the technology is fascinatingly
powerful, isn't it.
>>Bernard Kouchner: Yes, it is.
>>Paul Mason: What do you think about that?
What would you say -- where does this go?
Because once the cork is out of the bottle,
the genie is out, where is it going to end?
>>Bassem Youssef: Well, there's two sides
of it.
First of all, 10 years ago, social media didn't
have that much of leverage or effect on how
things were viewed, but we -- we really have
to put it in their own -- its own side.
It's not a Facebook revolution.
It's not a YouTube revolution.
It's just part of it.
Because in Egypt, we only have less than 30%
penetration of Internet.
So you have 70% of the people living out there
that doesn't know anything what's going on
on Facebook.
The mistake that people in social media -- the
social media gurus on Twitter and Facebook
think that if they create a Facebook page,
that they will actually change things.
It doesn't.
Because so many -- I mean, I remember the
referendum, a year ago when we had the referendum,
the "yes" or "no" on the amendments, and of
course the religious groups were advocating
for "yes" and everybody else, like our generation,
will select "no."
And if you look at Facebook, it's like, oh,
my God, it's going to be like a 70/30 or an
80/20 "no" vote, and it was a 78% "yes."
We were shocked because we had actually to
get out of the bubble.
Yes, of course it is a very good aiding tool,
but it's not everything.
We just have to put it in its own perspective
and we actually have, at the end, to work
on the ground, because the poor person with
kind of a minimal socioeconomic level will
listen to the guy who gives him food, who
gives him support, who talks to him in the
mosque, not the guy behind a screen on a keyboard
making Facebook pages.
>>Paul Mason: Srdja Popovic, can I just ask
you as well?
I mean, in the time since Otpor, you know,
overthrew -- helped overthrow Miloshevic,
you know, that's -- I think -- I don't remember
having broadband in 2000, to be honest, let
alone the social media.
How has it changed in the time you've been
-- in the essential dynamics of these revolutions;
people power, as you call it?
What has technology done to change it?
>>Srdja Popovic: Well, I mean, in 2000 when
we were launching our last campaign against
Miloshevic which was named "He's finished"
-- and he was finished -- we were so happy
to discover the small GSM cards which you
can put in your laptop, sending 20,000 text
messages with no trace.
And we thought this is the top of the -- this
is how high technology can go.
And now it's something the commercial companies
advertise this way.
It's a little bit expired.
There are three things which new media are
doing to the -- these movements.
First of all, they make things faster and
cheaper, so it -- I mean, organizing a rally
10 years ago, meaning putting posters, spreading
leaflets, going door to door takes time, takes
risk, people get arrested, and of course cost.
Then, you know, it's like now we make a Facebook
group and everybody grows.
But I would agree with my Egyptian friend.
It's like don't mix tools with substance,
because substance is happening in the real
world.
Second, a very important thing is that the
new media really put a price tag on state-sponsored
violence, because everybody is a reporter
now and it was very easy for (indiscernible)
to do slaughtering harm some 22 years ago
and, you know, kill 20,000 people.
Now, you know, you upload everything.
Very important for me is how this knowledge
spreads, which is like what Farah was talking
about.
It's like now the knowledge spreads from one
group to another very fast, and my big question,
because I'm always getting back to this over
and over, I had a tremendous session with
a resigned British diplomat, Carne Ross, in
New York a few weeks -- or few months ago
and we was talking about what the outsiders
can do to help this movement.
Okay.
We have this refrigerator and we have sanctions
and bombing there, okay?
This is most -- what most of the outsiders
think about these movements.
And what else than that?
Educating people is one.
You know, educating 80 people costs like one
rocket launcher, so it's like, you know, thinking
about the terms of the effect.
Then second, what if we can make an application
which will efficiently help you to face the
oppression and make the oppression backfire?
Is it worth investing money?
So I mean, there are so many different things
from safe communication platforms.
One of the beauty of the Skype is that it's
very difficult to trace.
So technology was backwards, but those -- surveillance
technology was backwards.
Now the technology is upwards and the governments
are using powerful technologies to surveil
people.
So technology is one side of the thing.
Education is another side of the thing.
But for me, the question of all questions
is what we can do to have these processes
without interfering into them.
Like empowering people by giving them knowledge,
by giving them means to do stuff rather than
interfering.
>>Paul Mason: And that's a very weird question
to be asking, especially if you're a social
or economic historian or just an amateur reader
of these events.
It was not many of the revolutionary events
in history that had a business community,
a democratic -- a preexisting democratic international
diplomatic community that was even asking
it the question "How do we help without interfering?"
I mean, that's something that must be high
on the State Department's agenda.
>>Farah Pandith: Well, of course it is, but
let me point this out -- and I'm not saying
this just because we're at Google -- look
at what Google Ideas did.
They understood that there are lessons to
be learned from networks around the world.
They have built the first platform of its
kind made by a private sector company's money
and ideas to pull together a worldwide network
of former extremists -- IRA, former Islamists,
blah, blah, blah, on and on.
How wonderful!
How out of the box!
How important it is that it wasn't government
that did that; that it was nongovernment that
did that.
My challenge to all of you is: What are you
going to do?
How are you going to think about this?
This is about youth.
This is about how we think about the next
generation.
And some of the tools we talked about, there's
education, there's leadership training, there's
all that kind of thing, but there's also building
the platforms that private sector money can
do, or the convening that they can do.
So it is challenging if it's just government
because we're not the credible voices here.
>>Paul Mason: There are some corporations
-- and even some social thinkers -- who might
say, "Okay, well, that's fair enough and it's
motherhood and apple pie and great, but almost
in every country and every region, there are
large sections of population that are naysayers.
The 20% in France who voted for Marine Le
Pen, the 5% in Greece who voted fascist, the
people who are die-hard supporters of Miloshevic,
and the people in your country to whom Muslim
empowerment is not a key attribute they like
to hear about.
So what -- why should business associate itself
with a -- one set of ideas, progressive, democratic,
liberal ideas, when large parts of the population
don't buy those ideas?
>>Farah Pandith: So we're not talking about
Muslim empowerment.
What we're talking about is --
>>Paul Mason: You know what I mean, though.
>>Farah Pandith: Right.
But I want to be really clear.
>>Paul Mason: If you go down to the southern
United States and say the word "Muslim," in
some parts you'll not get a great response.
>>Farah Pandith: Well, I can push back with
you on that because there are shrill voices
in every part of the world that would agree
with what you have to say.
But I will say that the vast majority of Americans
understand the dignity that is embedded in
our Constitution.
>>Paul Mason: I agree with you.
>>Farah Pandith: Okay.
So that's one.
>>Paul Mason: Yeah.
>>Farah Pandith: But the second piece is,
it isn't about Muslims.
It is about understanding across the board
how we think about the movement of ideas.
And as I said earlier to you, if we are looking
at a future and a vision of a world in which
we are maximizing robust communities, we're
building societies so that it can solve world
problems, human problems, whether we're talking
about HIV/AIDS, whether we're talking about
education, whether we're talking about women,
it isn't about Muslims or Christians or Jews
or Hindus or Baha'i.
We're talking about making sure that everybody
is working together on those issues.
And if you have one-fourth of humanity that
believes that there is an "us" and a "them,"
how are we going to stop polio eradication?
>>Paul Mason: Absolutely.
Bernard Kouchner, let me just throw that one
at you as well.
I mean, the French ruling political elite
hasn't excelled itself, hasn't it, really,
in the last 20 years from making correct cause.
You yourself in the Algerian case, you were
against what happened.
The Rwandan case is a case in point.
You know, what -- do you -- could this just
all be a flash in the pan, and could we -- and
so we go back to the world, the world the
old political elite knew before all this happened,
before it became possible to -- for corporations
to ally themselves with democratic and liberal
values?
>>Bernard Kouchner: Coming back to this world,
no, certainly not, but having a clear view
on the future, this is also very difficult.
Very difficult.
And so we were talking mainly about Egypt.
Egypt is a very good example.
A better example than the other countries.
Sorry to say, but in Libya, when the new government
announced that they were following Shia, we
were not very happy.
So this is difficult.
What about Yemen, where more or less they
were supporting Saleh and a sort of escape,
a free escape, et cetera?
What about the main problem in between Shia-ism
and Sunnitism?
This is facing us, facing them.
So don't believe that because of Google, thank
for Google, we have solved all problem.
Certainly not.
Better to talk to each other, better to know
that we are all together for the knowledge,
but we also have to express our views in election.
We were talking about election.
Because the presidential election is just
coming in Egypt, et cetera.
So we have not solved the problem.
We are talking about HIV/AIDS.
Yes, this is a -- What about demography?
What about poverty is this poverty is a remaining
problem with Google or without Google.
Certainly it will be better to know about
and to share our view and to share our resources,
certainly.
So is there a French view on that?
Well, I don't want to criticize my country,
but it was not clear, neither in your country,
the position facing the coming of the Arab
Spring.
Not so clear.
And we change our mind, and we invited Khadaffi
and we bomb Khadaffi, et cetera, et cetera.
[ Laughter ]
>>Bernard Kouchner: Hey, it's a bit of contradiction.
>>Paul Mason: We did that as well.
>>Bernard Kouchner: So don't believe that
will solve the problem only with better communication.
>>Bassem Youssef: You have to get croissant.
That's somewhere to start from.
You have a good patisserie.
We can solve the problem of the world by --
>>Paul Mason: I was going to bring you in
at that point.
>>Bassem Youssef: Croissant.
>>Paul Mason: What is your fear now?
For your own country.
It is the center of the process that's been
unleashed.
It has huge resources, huge population, and
it is physically in the center of the Middle
East.
What's the perspective now?
>>Bassem Youssef: Well, you know, as long
as it's a democratic process where we are
allowed to actually elect and choose without
any external interference, I have great hopes.
My only fear is there would be some sort of
a unity between military Fascism and religious
Fascism.
That's the worst thing that could happen to
anybody.
I mean, I'm not afraid like when people tell
Egypt is going to become Saudi Arabia, is
going to become Iran, is going to become Afghanistan.
No, we are not going to be become like that.
The only problem is if we actually become
something like Pakistan.
If the military makes some sort of a deal
with the radical Islamic movement and they
will actually give them some sort of a protection
so they can actually do -- or impose their
extremism agenda.
If their religious powers are left for their
own and they are left to deal with the real
issues on the ground, people will actually
decide for themselves who to choose.
Actually two, three months after the parliament
elections, almost half of the people who voted
for Islamic power said they are not going
to vote for them again because they have failed
on so many economic issues.
So just leave it to free fall.
And everything will sort itself out.
Just like don't get the military in and don't
get external powers in.
That's it.
>>Paul Mason: Srdja Popovic, your manual for
nonviolent revolution is --
>>Srdja Popovic: By the way, it's behind you.
>>Paul Mason: There it is.
Was downloaded, as you say, in Iran during
the -- what is called the green revolution.
It was called by the Washington post at the
time the Twitter revolution, rather optimistically
since only a thousand people in Iran at the
time had Twitter accounts.
[ Laughter ]
>>Paul Mason: Nevertheless, one was, as a
journalist, able to follow it quite accurately
by following those thousand people.
Let me ask you, though, about Iran.
What do you think -- we have been through
this iteration of successful revolutions,
networked revolutions.
The people in Egypt did, by a combination
of mass force and ingenuity what the Iranians
weren't able to do.
What do you think now for Iran?
>>Srdja Popovic: I think the rules are the
same and I don't think we should focus too
much on Twitter and social networks.
There are reasons why the revolutions -- these
revolutions have three phases, and this is
exactly what my friend from Egypt said.
The one section we look at is bringing the
bad guy down.
And then we need to prevent the coup.
And then we need to build up democracy, and
it's a slow process.
So don't stick to the first one.
Looking at Iran, comparing to the other countries,
you can look at many successful and nonsuccessful
cases.
And, you know, you look at the unsuccessful
stalemates in the places like Zimbabwe or
Belarus or Iran, and it's more comparable,
because when the opposition forces, this youth
movement doesn't have the unity, for example,
all the Twitter in the world will not help
if they don't plan.
If they don't have a strategy, if they don't
come out with clear tactics, then all the
networking doesn't come out.
And then if they don't have nonviolent discipline,
which is very important, and somehow slip
into violence, they lose credibility, they
give government every reason for a crackdown.
So it's about the unity, planning, nonviolence,
discipline.
And, yes, it is very nice if they can put
a little bit of Twitter as a strawberry on
the top of this story.
This is really finding their vision of tomorrow
all together rather than just tweeting.
>>Paul Mason: Srdja Popovic, Farah Pandith,
Bernard Kouchner, and Bassem Youssef, thank
you very much.
[ Applause ]
