America's Egyptian Problem: Shall it be Ethics or Realpolitik?
"To
support the Egyptian rebels would frighten U.S. allies, the monarchs of Jordan,
Saudi Arabia and Morocco, who also confront the specter of revolution. If
Americans abandon their friends, wouldn't it be unwise to carry their water?
On the other hand, continued support for Mubarak's regime would be an open contradiction
to the American ideal of democracy."
"Condoleezza,
give Mubarak a visa!” is a rhyme chanted by demonstrators in Cairo's Tahrir
Square. Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state during the George W. Bush
administration, has little to say about granting a visa to the president of
Egypt, but it is no wonder that rebellious Egyptians are shouting her name. In
2005, in a speech at Cairo University, Rice said that "a day is coming
when the vision of a world entirely free and democratic will become reality.”
She exhorted Mubarak to "trust his nation and give it the freedom of
choice.” [watch video in photo box].
Mubarak
didn't trust his people and didn't give them a choice - and he suffered no
consequences for it: he kept receiving his annual U.S. aid of $1.5 billion. In
2009, America's new President, Barack Obama, traveled to Cairo to extend his
hand to Muslims after eight years of an "anti-Islam crusade,” as Bush's
politics were seen in that region of the world.
"I
do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the
ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence
in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is
transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you
choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is
why we will support them everywhere,” Obama
declared in his Cairo speech to Muslims.
But just
like the Bush team, the Obama's Administration has backed Arab despots,
tolerating political persecution, torture, electoral cheating and corruption.
Diplomatic cables revealed by Wikileaks show that Washington cherished its
military alliance with Mubarak: it helped keep the peace between Egypt and
Israel; gave the U.S. military access to the Suez Canal and Egyptian air space,
and helped in the fight against terrorism.
That
is, until the revolution. It took less than a week for the U.S. administration
to change its position from supporting "stable government” in Cairo, to
wishing for an "orderly transition” to demanding "democratic
change." The Department of State, surprised and confused, is "observing
and reacting" (to the way the wind blows), according to its spokesman.
After several days of protests, it has apparently concluded that Mubarak isn't
worth saving.
"Democratic"
change doesn't mean uncontrolled change. According to The New York Times,
Obama's envoys in Cairo are trying to convince leaders of the regime to, as
they say in chess, "castle": the president resigns, with power passing
to a transitional government led by Vice President Omar Suleiman, with the
support of army chief and military leadership. The government would also
include representatives of the opposition, including the banned Muslim
Brotherhood. And in September - free elections.
Such a
formula would have a chance of keeping Egypt within America's sphere of
influence. At least until September. During those few months, Mubarak party
(but without Mubarak himself) would be able to safeguard its interests,
reorganize and record a good result in the election. Even if it doesn't win, it
will have hope of entering into a new governing coalition.
Except
that it'll be hard for the Egyptian street to accept a solution pushed by the United
States. Omar Suleiman is seen as a CIA man. Until now the demonstrations have
not been anti-American, but that could change.
"The
crisis in Egypt has shown the limits of American power, or rather how unable it
is to use it,” U.S. political analyst Adam Lockyer told Australia's
ABC News from Sydney. Washington is no longer the prime mover of
world events that it used to be, but is simply trying to keep up with them. It
has lost Tunisia, it is losing Egypt and things probably won't stop there.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
Americans
have a dilemma. To support the Egyptian rebels would frighten their allies, the
monarchs of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Morocco, who also confront the specter of revolution.
If Americans abandon their friends, wouldn't it be unwise to carry their water?
On the other hand, continued support for Mubarak's regime would be an open contradiction
to the American ideal of democracy. Moreover, if Mubarak is ousted in spite of
U.S. support, Egypt will be lost to America for good.
Commentators
are split: some prophesy Armageddon: the creation of a regime hostile to the U.S.
in Egypt, and the loss, bit by bit, of the entire Middle East. Others hope for
some form kind of positive outcome.
"I
don't believe we're losing the Middle East,” Aaron David Miller of Woodrow
Wilson Center told Gazeta Wyborcza. "We can still influence a
peaceful transformation, so that it doesn't harm our interests. But we cannot
choose who rules, because in that part of the world, America has never had such
influence.”
