When it comes to the Egyptian government’s appalling human rights violations and manipulation of state agencies to maintain a farcical democracy with which to hide them, the Obama administration has consistently been mum. It comes as little surprise that the United States turned a democracy promotion volte face following the failed experiments of the Bush years. Whitewashing Egypt’s brazen abuse of state power, however, is a serious foreign policy error. With the nation reaching a critical turning point as the thirty-plus year “presidency” of Hosni Mubarak reaches its end, the U.S. ought to rethink its policies in Egypt and speak out now more than ever.
Egypt will hold elections for the People’s Assembly, the lower parliamentary house, on Sunday, November 28th. If elections were free and fair, the ruling National Democratic Party of Mr. Mubarak would forfeit its unchallenged dominion over the two-third parliamentary majority and absolute control of government. Yet, Egypt and the world are well aware that results are predetermined: the Egyptian government refuses to allow international observation missions, and domestic monitors remain heavily restricted in both number and function. Corrupt election processes, replete with arbitrary arrests of dissidents and fraudulent candidate and voter registration procedures, are a given. Certainly, Mubarak’s maintenance of authoritarian power over a pivotal nation of 83 million people is no simple task, but the United States has aided in his success with billions of dollars and deaf attention for decades.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit and Intelligence Director General Omar Suleiman met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington two weeks ago where discussion of the upcoming elections was conspicuously absent. In her post-meeting remarks, Clinton extolled the U.S.-Egypt partnership as a “cornerstone of stability and security in the Middle East.” Indeed, it has been, but at what cost, and – more critically – is it durable?
Last week the State Department finally employed its Spokesperson, P.J. Crowley, to encourage a fair electoral process, most likely to deflect criticism after the Gheit meeting. A forthright call by Washington for democracy in Egypt runs the risk of being interpreted by the regime as a threat, or an opportunity to manipulate the public and stoke nationalism; an Egyptian government minister recently derided Crowley’s call for international monitoring as an assault on sovereignty. Speaking out obviously has the potential to spark regional disturbance. The Obama administration adopted a laissez-fair approach during Iran’s rigged elections in 2009 to avoid such prospects, and has done so again toward Egypt, and with good reason.
Cairo’s continued role as mediator in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process is the central rationale for the U.S.’ sustained support of its recalcitrant authoritarianism. In April this year, former National Security Advisor, James L. Jones, highlighted a two-state solution as pivotal for regional security. Taking “such an evocative issue away from Iran, Hizbullah, and Hamas,” would create space for regional U.S. allies “to focus on building their states and institutions.” Egypt has been the prominent peace broker for the past thirty years, and although its diplomatic status has slipped compared to Turkey’s recent rise, it remains a central player in striking deals. Nor can Washington dismiss the critical asset of having unfettered access to Egypt’s Suez Canal, the maritime military pass-point to the broader Middle East.
It is certain that establishing lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is an utmost regional priority. U.S. financial and diplomatic support for nations capable of facilitating the process is a reasonable, realist-oriented strategy. Given Egypt’s success rate since the 1979 Camp David Accords, however, one could fairly argue that Washington is getting a poor return on its investment when it comes to peace. More importantly, an independent Palestine need not be fully realized before acknowledging the rank state of democracy in Egypt.
As much as the current White House administration may be inclined to disagree, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had it right back in 2005. At an address at the American University in Cairo, Rice accurately noted that “for over 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East, and we achieved neither.” Clinging to the Cold War concept of buttressing authoritarians or dictators to implement foreign policy is taking the Obama Administration backward. Factors, coalitions, and governments are constantly changing in the Middle East. As such, isolating the peace process as a priority at the expense of democracy is an unwise long-term strategy. Avoiding the regime’s electoral chicanery means losing the opportunity to gain faith among those who might one day lead the country.
Silence certainly does speak volumes. It signals quite loudly to Egyptians that their human, civil, and political rights are trumped by a nebulously defined regional stability that hinges on a Palestinian-Israeli agreement. Yet, the security of which Secretary Clinton speaks is extremely shaky to begin with. True stability in Egypt is dependent upon genuine democratic progress. By waiting for a two-state solution before publicly recognizing the right of Egyptians to a free and fair election process, the Obama Administration is placing all of its diplomatic eggs in one poorly woven basket. Should the bottom fall out and no peace deal is reached, the U.S. will have lost both the security catalyzed by a Palestinian state and the “cornerstone” that never really was.
This image is being used under Creative Commons licensing. The original source can be found here.