Yesterday I said that I'd been more or less satisfied with the Obama Administration's rhetorical reaction to the events in Egypt. I'm starting to think, though, that it's time to become more forceful about calling for Mubarak to step down. Thus far, the American response to the protests in Egypt has been one of hedging - offering general rhetorical support for Egyptian self-determination, warning against a crackdown, but not officially calling for any particular outcome. That's seemed to be the right course to this point. Particularly during the first few days of protest, when it was unclear whether this was just a flare-up that the Mubarak regime would weather, I think there was rightful wariness of staking out a strong position. As I noted, it's not as though we have much leverage here in the first place, and if the challenge to the Mubarak regime had quickly petered out, an overly hasty public abandonment of Mubarak would hurt the American relationship with Egypt, make the Administration look inept, and add more fodder to the narrative of an out-of-touch, bullying America throwing its weight around the Middle East and imperiously pronouncing who does and doesn't get to rule the states therein. As with events in Iran in 2009-2010, the danger that American rhetorical support might be a poisoned chalice for the protesters' cause was (and is) quite real.
The protests, though, haven't petered out. Indeed, by all reports, they're starting to gain organizational coherence and something resembling an affirmative program. What's more, Mohammad ElBaradei, who (if one believes recent reports) is beginning to emerge as something of a movement leader, has actually asked the United States to take a more assertive stance against Mubarak. We seem to be reaching the point where hedging is no longer smart policy. As Steve Walt points out, Mubarak is 83. Even if he somehow manages to weather this crisis, he represents Egypt's past, not its future.
At this point, I think a pretty good case can be made for getting out ahead of events and calling for Mubarak to step down. It would better position the United States to work within whatever political equilibrium emerges out of these protests. Oh, and for what it's worth, it would also be the right thing to do.
I suspect the US has been initially cautious in part because they're looking out for Israel's interests here, and in even larger part because the US (and the EU) are very concerned about the Suez Canal. Any developments that put that corridor at risk could be economically disastrous, and it's the last thing either the US or EU economies can afford at this point.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, supporting this popular movement is first and foremost the right thing to do, as you rightly point out. And ElBaradei and other potential opposition leaders have explicitly stated their intention to honor all of Egypt's current foreign treaties, somewhat allaying the fear over relations with Israel. If the US guides this inevitable transition, rather than fights it, they can also contribute to Egypt's stability and do much to ensure the Suez shipping lane stays open.
Time for the US to do the right thing in the Middle East, for once, and to get on the right side of history.
The right side of history is to be traditionalist at home and to be explicitly anti-Islam. At least a recognition of what Islam truly is will strengthen people who want the immigration and foreign aid stopped.
ReplyDeleteOver time, the most likely effect of the calls for freedom in Egypt will be increased power for the Muslim Brotherhood. Even Egyptians of good will can look at the secular west and see the loss of gender roles, the pornography, the drug use, the street violence and on and on. All of that is at bottom a spiritual void.
Iran? The leftists who thought in secular terms were killed.
The so-called "Palestinian people"? Hamas.
Lebanon? In 1960, with a 60% Christian population, she was "Paris of the Middle East." A later movement for freedom, the March 17th movement, was insufficient; and they now have Hizbullah.
Meanwhile, Pakistan has 100 nukes.
Where do you think this is going?
Clueless in Washington
ReplyDelete