Egypt's Revolution:
Will America Pick the Right Side this Time?
"We
hope that in Egypt, the United States doesn't repeat the foolishness of
supporting a military government that quashes democratization, as it did with South
Korea's Gwangju Democratization Movement in the 1980s. At the time, the result was
a delay in the democratization of South Korea and the generation of anti-American
sentiment."
A woman in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, holds a sign suggesting that as far as she's concerned, Egyptian President Mubarak has been too cozy with Israel, Jan. 26.
Anti-government demonstrators
in Egypt calling for President Hosni Mubarak to resign are reaching a peak. Mubarak,
who has ruled the country with an iron fist for the past three decades, has undertaken
a cabinet reshuffle and pledged political reforms to calm protests that have
continued for several days. His efforts have failed to reap the desired result.
The demonstrators, spurred on by Tunisia's Jasmine Revolution, have
declared that they'll continue until Mubarak steps down, and have formed a group
to establish a nation-saving government around Mohamed El-Baradei, the
former director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Meanwhile, with the military stationed
in major cities merely looking on, as a string of anarchic incidents such as
prison breaks and looting break out, Egypt's notorious police have returned to
the streets once again in the name of preserving public order. Egypt's popular
revolution is now at a crossroads between relatively peaceful success and
tragic bloodshed, with some expressing concern that the government may be
building a pretext for forcible suppression.
The key to a solution lies
with the Egyptian military and the United States. Ever since it helped former President Nasser topple
the monarchy [1956], the military has been the backbone of Egyptian political
power. Since the demonstrations began, the military has taken a twofold
approach. In contrast with the police, who incurred the people's wrath with
their bloody suppression of demonstrators, the military has avoided actively inhibiting
the protests, and so for the time being, have succeeded in winning hearts and
minds. At the same time, senior military commanders have appeared on TV standing
beside Mubarak, giving the impression of support. Now the protestors are demanding
that the military pick a side: Egypt or Mubarak.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
More attention is being focused
on Washington’s role in the how the situation has unfolded. The United States
sends about $1.3 billion a year in military aid to Egypt, and major firms in America's
military-industrial complex, such as Lockheed Martin, have concessions there. Washington
is in a position to wield considerable influence on Cairo's military and must send
a signal to the Egyptian government that it not go against the people’s hunger
for democracy.
Of course, the idea of an
Egypt without Mubarak may be troubling for the United States. He has, after all,
been a key player in Washington’s Middle East policy, which regards the
security of Israel as paramount. But after decades of suppression, quashing the
desire of Egyptians for democratization doesn't serve Washington’s long-term
interests or those of the global community. There is grave danger that
thwarting the drive toward democratization would empower [Islamic] fundamentalists,
who depend on the tactics of terror. This could lead to greater instability in
the region and throughout the world.
We hope that in Egypt, the
United States doesn't repeat the foolishness of supporting a military
government that quashes democratization, as it did with South Korea's Gwangju
Democratization Movement in the 1980s. At the time, the result was a delay in
the democratization of South Korea and the generation of anti-American sentiment.
