"The
notion of buying stability and influence with political TLC and $1.5 billion a
year has failed. Whether it's a regime in South America or a family clan like
the Marcos' in the Philippines - in the end, the will of the people is stronger,
and there is no valve that can regulate the cauldron's pressure."
For too long, stagnation has
been mistaken for stability: Washington bids farewell to Egyptian President
Hosni Mubarak - and to the idea of money being capable of buying peace and
influence over potentates. To its shame, the Western world has to admit failure
in Egypt.
When the Cold War ended a
good 20 years ago, Hosni Mubarak had already been president of Egypt for
ten years, and was perhaps the central figure in the game for power and influence
in the Middle East. The Cold War hadn’t left much room for shades of grey -
just black and white: my dictator or your dictator, my autocracy or your
autocracy - in the struggle of the major blocs for influence and followers, the
only thing that mattered was who one was for or against. Mubarak dominated the game
masterfully, particularly after the collapse of the old order as he took the leading
role in the theater that followed: peace in the Middle East. Mubarak was a
guarantor of stability, an anchor for the Arab World.
The self-emancipation of
Tunisian and now Egyptian citizens from their rulers and decrepit structures
puts an end to yet another infamous episode of this satellite policy - a policy
that in recent history has much too often done harm. This is reflected in the pathetic
see-saw policies of the Obama government over recent days. First, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton urged calm and reason; then the White House made the
abstract observation that people should have the right to express their own
opinions and demonstrate; and finally, ally Mubarak was given a clear
admonition to silence his weapons and allow a peaceful transition into a new
era. The U.S. has bid farewell to Mubarak.
But the Obama government must
also bid goodbye to the notion that stability and influence over potentates can
be purchased and retained for the long term. The notion of buying stability and
influence with political TLC and $1.5 billion a year has failed. Whether it's a
regime in South America or a family clan like the Marcos' in the Philippines -
in the end, the will of the people is stronger, and there is no valve that can
regulate the cauldron's pressure. No matter how understandable the motives for
a policy may be, it can't work if it ignores the ancient power of an oppressed
people.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
The satellite model is not an
exclusively American phenomenon. The U.S. is only the most exposed because it
has such a long reach. But even German foreign policy had faith in Mubarak and came
to terms with the deal offered by the potentate: stability in the region and
some hope of peace for Israel in exchange for silence - silence on human rights,
on the modernization of politics and society, and on corruption and a lack of
transparency. The uprising in Egypt isn't directed against the influence of
foreign powers. They only play a minor role. The people of Cairo have their
ruler in their sights. However, the patron nations of the Mubarak regime are
tainted by the old system and are now paying a price - even if the U.S. quietly
urged Mubarak in recent months to open up the system and grant more freedom.
For the powers that were
patrons of Mubarak, the fact that he's being ousted by the "street" proves
their powerlessness. The U.S. was unable to move Mubarak to introduce reforms, but
neither could they disconnect him from his financial intravenous drip. The Faustian bargain
worked, and the deep fear of fundamentalists and nationalists created a dependence
that, in the end, even strengthened the dictator. Mubarak used the attention to
solidify his regime and pay for his security apparatus. What was meant to suppress
the Islamist threat also helped suppress the modernizers and democrats. In the
end, the fear of the Muslim
Brotherhood made Mubarak’s helpers abroad blind to the danger that came
from the regime itself. Now there is a danger that anarchy and fanaticism could
uncontrollably escalate, and that this mighty nation could implode.
Stability cannot be purchased
from without, especially if stagnation is mistaken for stability. Egypt’s
future will now be determined by Egyptians themselves. They have realized that
they must drive out those who object to modernity, so that once again, they
have some air to breath. The U.S. and the rest of the democratic West, who with
some justification prize their own democratic and free systems and who are
aware of their superiority, must, to their shame, acknowledge that they have
failed. For a meager benefit - a little stability, a little peace - they turned
a blind eye to the disregard of the most important political values. And they failed
to show their allies where they draw the line.
All of this will do nothing
to diminish the attraction of the U.S. and Europe for many in the Arab world. But
the opportunity for direct influence and respect for the policies of the West
are dwindling. The Arab world is tumbling into a dramatic period of transition,
and the West can do nothing but watch. The aftershocks of the Egyptian earthquake
will be felt from Tangiers to Tehran, in Rabat and Riyadh. Regimes everywhere
follow the same pattern - and nowhere has the West withdrawn its support from
the powerful.
