-
WORD WEARY
Why the State of the Union Doesn't Matter
-
STEVE CLEMONS
Improving U.S. Mideast Policy
-
FIRST IMPRESSION
Thoughts on Southeast Asia
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Monday, January 31, 2011 - 11:09 AM
Share
Like nearly everyone-including, I assume, Hosni Mubarak himself -- I've been surprised by the speed, scope and intensity of the upheaval in Egypt. As I write this, it's still not clear whether Mubarak will remain in power. Nor do we know how far-reaching the changes might be if he were to leave. We should all be somewhat humble about our ability to forecast where things are headed, or what the future implications might be.
That caveat notwithstanding, I want to offer a realist interpretation of what these events mean for the United States, along with the basic prescription that follows from that analysis. And though it may surprise some of you, I think realism dictates that the United States encourage Mubarak to leave, and openly endorse the creation of a democratic government in Egypt.
Realists are often caricatured as being uninterested in democracy or human rights, and concerned solely with the distribution of power and a narrowly defined national interest. It is true that realists tend to see calculations about power as the most important factor shaping international politics, and they often see sharp tradeoffs between strategic interests and moral preferences. Yet domestic considerations-including human rights-can be relevant for realists, particularly when thinking about one's allies.
To maximize their own security, states want allies that are strong, stable, and that do not cause major strategic problems for them (i.e., by getting into counterproductive quarrels with others). Other things being equal, states are better off if they don't have to worry about their allies' internal stability, and if an allied government enjoys considerable support among its population. An ally that is internally divided, whose government is corrupt or illegitimate, or that is disliked by lots of other countries is ipso facto less valuable than one whose population is unified, whose government is legitimate, and that enjoys lots of international support. For this reason, even a staunch realist would prefer allies that were neither internally fragile nor international pariahs, while recognizing that sometimes you have to work with what you have.
Accordingly, far-reaching political reform in Egypt is an objective realists should support. Even if Mubarak manages to cling to power, his regime has been fatally compromised. If he uses massive force to suppress the popular movement, it will be damaged even more. Mubarak himself is 83 years old, and even a successful act of repression won't buy him (or his domestic allies) a lot of time. If the United States is seen as complicit in keeping him in power, it will solidify Arab anger and make our exalted rhetoric about democracy and human rights look like the basest hypocrisy.
In fact, this is one of those fortunate moments when the United States does not face a clear tradeoff between its moral sympathies and its strategic imperatives. For starters, Egypt is not a major oil producer like Saudi Arabia, so a shift in regime in Cairo will not imperil our vital interest in ensuring that Middle East oil continues to flow to world markets. By itself, in fact, Egypt isn't a critical strategic partner. Yes, military bases there can be useful transit points when we intervene in the region, but the United States has other alternatives and military intervention isn't something we should be eager to do anyway (remember Iraq?). Egypt is not as influential in the Arab world as it once was, in part due to the social and economic stagnation that has characterized the Mubarak era, and its recent efforts to mediate several on-going disputes have been unsuccessful. Furthermore, U.S. support for dictators like Mubarak has been one of al Qaeda's major reasons for targeting the United States, as well as a useful recruiting tool (along with our unstinting support for Israel and our military presence in the Gulf). It is also one of the main reasons why many Arabs have a negative view of the United States. Viewed strictly on its own, the U.S. alliance with Egypt has become a strategic liability.
As a number of commentators have emphasized, the real reason the United States has backed Mubarak over the years is to preserve the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, and to a lesser extent, because Mubarak shared U.S. concerns about Hamas and Iran. In other words, our support for Mubarak was directly linked to the "special relationship" with Israel, and the supposedly "strategic interest" involved was largely derivative of the U.S. commitment to support Israel at all costs. For those of us who think that the "special relationship" is bad for the U.S. and Israel alike, therefore, a change of government in Egypt is not alarming.
In fact, change in Cairo might not threaten Israel's interests significantly, and might even help break the calcified diplomatic situation in the region. For starters, a post-Mubarak government is unlikely to tear up the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, because such a move would immediately put it at odds with both the United States and Europe and bring Cairo few tangible benefits. Although ordinary Egyptians do feel strong sympathy for the Palestinians, the primary concern of those now marching in the streets is domestic affairs, not foreign policy. A new government will think long and hard about taking any steps that might cost it the current U.S. aid package, and the Egyptian military would be dead-set against any actions that would jeopardize the support it gets from Washington. Even in the worst case where the treaty did lapse, this would not create an existential threat to Israel. Why? Because Egypt's military is no match for the IDF and Cairo's capabilities would deteriorate further once U.S. military aid was cut off.
Of course, if the Egyptian government becomes more responsive to its population, we can expect it to be more critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and its refusal to accept a viable two-state solution. It will also be less willing to collude with U.S.-backed policies such as the counter-productive and cruel siege of Gaza. In other words, we may be witnessing the birth pangs of an Egypt that it is a more like contemporary Turkey: neither hostile nor subservient, and increasingly seeking to chart its own course. And this might be precisely the sort of wake-up call that Israel needs, to help it realize that its long-term security does not lie solely in military strength or territorial control. Ultimately, its security must rest on being accepted by its neighbors, and the only way to do that is via a two-state solution with the Palestinians (as the 2002/2007 Saudi/Arab League peace plan envisioned).
To be sure, such a prospect is certain to alarm anyone who thinks that U.S. Middle East policy has been pretty much on-target for the past few decades. But the number of people who still believe that should be dwindling rapidly, when one considers the debacle in Iraq, the prolonged turmoil in Lebanon, Iran's growing influence, the failure of the Oslo peace process, and the revolving door of failed U.S. Mideast policymakers, who are often wrong but never disqualified for appointment. For those of us who think that U.S. policy has been bad for just about everyone except our adversaries, the turmoil in Cairo is not a threat but an opportunity.
To be specific, this crisis in Egypt is an opportunity for the United States to rethink the underlying principles of the Pax Americana that Washington has sought to maintain in the Middle East for decades. That arrangement rested on three pillars: 1) unconditional support for Israel, 2) denying or discounting Palestinian rights, and 3) support for and collusion with various "pro-Western" leaders whose legitimacy was always questionable. Though this policy had occasional moments of success-such as the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel and the 1991 Gulf War -- it was always a long-term loser. Unconditional U.S. support removed any short-term incentive for Israel to cut a fair deal with the Palestinians, and collusion with leaders like Mubarak made the United States even less popular on the Arab street.
In short, this as a moment when Barack Obama needs to be on the right side of history. And that means openly supporting the forces seeking democratic change in Egypt, not hanging back and losing the moment.As Mohamed ElBaradei said yesterday, "It's better for President Obama not to appear that he is the last one to say to President Mubarak, it's time for you to go." And if the Obama administration has cold feet, they might even heed the words of that arch-realist Otto von Bismarck, who famously said "The statesman's task is to hear God's footsteps marching through history, and to try and catch on to His coat-tails as He marches past." I don't think God has anything to do with this business, but the footsteps of history seem to be echoing rather loudly at the moment. The question is: Will Obama hear them?
ELVIS BARUKCIC/AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:ACADEMIA, ARAB WORLD, MIDDLE EAST, AL QAEDA, DEMOCRACY, EGYPT, FOREIGN AID, HUMAN RIGHTS, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
As you point out almost anyone will have difficulty predicting what will happen in Egypt and in other Middle Eastern Countries. However, here is a video of how strong the will of a mass of people has become. This kind of determination shows that they will in fact cause major changes. (Caution--It does show people dying) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBtYLBQPRGQ
At a minimum, they will continue to strongly raise issues of human dignity and economic justice for everyone across the globe, not just in the Middle East.
If they continually build an organization of factions and parties and recruit the Army into their movement, then they will take control of the government. Another indicator will be how well Mubarak can maintain loyalty and unity. Whoever is most unified will have a great advantage.
The US can identify itself with the force of their determination, or take a significant risk of becoming isolated from rising powers and rising alliances across the globe.
If I were doing the foreign policy, I would start participating somehow with this people power force. I would also start by changing our focus from western style institution building and loyalty to only governments; but I would begin to penetrate and listen to the voices of multiple factions and interests and above all show respect for their desires and dignity.
Those people are a powerful force and can make a strong ally----for somebody.
Bob Spencer
This has nothing to do with why Obama should let Mubarak step down but, not suprising, allows you to go on an Israel bashing.
dont forget Mr. Walt.
BLAME THE JEWS!!! Right? its seemed to work for you so far.
What on Earth do the jews have to do with president Mubarak's actual problems? Or, rather, the Egyptian people's problem with president Mubarak?
Certainly, "The Jews" do have their fingers in many pies around the world, but not every problem is cooked by Israel. Not this one.
This has everything to do with Israel.
Turn on any cable news channel and you can be guaranteed that the middle aged man in the grey suit is talking about how this affects Israel.
The State Department has been talking about Israel.
There's no point sticking your head in the sand.
PRETTY CLEAR OLD WALT HAS A HARD ON FOR ISRAEL
One of the most amazing elements of the evolving revolution in Egypt, Tunisia and other parts of the Arab world is the degree to which all of this is NOT ABOUT THEM.
For the tens of thousands of protesters who took to Egypt’s streets over the weekend, defying the curfew and calling for the departure of President Hosni Mubarak, Israel and the Palestinians were simply not on the agenda.
And the same was the case during the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia earlier this month, and in the demonstrations intermittently taking place in Jordan, Yemen, Algeria and Morocco. No cries of death to Israel, no signs to “lift the siege” of Gaza, no chants against housing projects in Ariel.
And to all those who would answer this by asking what kind of egotistical people would think that everything is about them, that they are the center of all regional developments, just consider what everyone from US President Barack Obama, to US Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and to PROF WALT HERE have been saying for years: that the Israeli-Palestinian issue is the main source of foment and ferment in the Middle East.
Remove that source of antagonism, this argument ran, move Israel out of the West Bank, stop building a new apartment complex in Gilo, and stability would be much easier to bring to the region.
Really? Truly? Let’s imagine that two years ago Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had accepted with open arms Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer of a Palestinian state on nearly 95 percent of the land, with a land swap for the rest, half of Jerusalem and an international consortium in control of the “Holy Basin,” would Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia not have set himself on fire, would rivers of people not be marching now in Egypt against Mubarak’s autocratic regime?
It’s clear that the tidal wave of popular anger against the Arab world’s “moderate” regimes would be washing over those regimes regardless of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.
Why? Because Middle East instability is not about Israel – it is about them. It is about Arab unemployment, and Arab poverty, and Arab despair of a better future.
One of the axioms repeated ad nauseum over the years by pundits around the world is that Arab despair breeds the radicalism that breeds the terrorism, and that the source of that despair is the Palestinian issue. Take that issue away and there will be far less despair, and thus far less terrorism. Hogwash.
True, there is hopelessness in the Arab world – but the source is not the Arab masses concern about the Palestinians; the source is the Arab masses concern about their own lives, their own unemployment and their own lack of freedoms. Fix that and you get stability; ignore that, and you get revolution.
But everyone – led by the US under Obama and the EU, and parroted by pseudo-academics like Walt – ignored that, fixating instead on the building of another house in Ramat Shlomo, another apartment unit in Efrat. How many times have international leaders bewailed the humanitarian situation in east Jerusalem and in Gaza? How many statements have been issued expressing righteous indignation and concern? And, by comparison, how much attention did these same leaders pay to the humanitarian situation in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Morocco, Jordan and Algeria – in the “moderate” Arab states. And which situation, really, threatens the stability of the region?
The Middle East is now at a crossroads. There is a democratic moment fast approaching, but one looks at it with fear and trembling. The events in Tunisia and now in Egypt may indeed represent the Arab world’s first popular revolutions, but they are by far not the world’s first revolutions.
The fear and trembling is that what happened in France in 1789, in Russia in 1917 and in Iran in 1979 will repeat itself in Egypt and the Arab world in 2011. After the old was thumped out by the new in those countries, there was a brief moment when democratic forces arose – be it the National Constituent Assembly and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in France, Alexander Kerensky in Russia, or Shapour Bakhtiar in Iran – only to be swept away by the radicals: Robespierre in Paris, the Bolsheviks in Moscow, Ayatollah Khomeini in Teheran.
In Egypt, too, democratic forces are on the march, but the radical extremists are lurking in the shadows, ready to pounce.
None of this, of course, gets Israel off the hook. The conflict with the Palestinians is real, it’s acute and huge efforts must be found to try and justly manage if not solve it. But this conflict also must be put in its proper perspective; it must not be magnified far beyond its true dimensions.
When WikiLeaks began publishing US diplomatic cables in November, the world got a good glance at the degree to which the Arab leaders themselves did not see Israel – but rather Iran – as their main threat and the primary source of regional instability.
Now on the streets of Cairo, Tunis and Saana, the world is getting a good glance at what the people see as the main threat – their own governments.
Neither the people, nor the leaders, are holding Israel and the Palestinians up as the main problem. Is the West listening? Is Prof Walt?
Pretty clear you're an apologist for Israeli atrocities
You only post on topics that mention Israel. You're like a crazed stalker. Get over it. How many times does your account need to be suspended to either tone it down or go away?
THEANTICLAUS spinning his wheels again
"For the tens of thousands of protesters who took to Egypt’s streets over the weekend, defying the curfew and calling for the departure of President Hosni Mubarak, Israel and the Palestinians were simply not on the agenda."
Except that every talking head (aka foreign policy expert) on cable news, is talking about Israel.
The State Department can't stop talking about Israel.
Mike Huckabee in in Israel denouncing the demonstrations in Egypt, because of what they mean for Israel.
Netenyahu has sent out an SOS imploring world leaders to back Muabrak and keep him in power.
But according to THEANTICLAUS, it's all Walt's fault that Israel is being mentioned.
"Let’s imagine that two years ago Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had accepted with open arms Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer of a Palestinian state on nearly 95 percent of the land.."
Let's not, given that the Palestine Papers have revealed Olmert's offer was pure BS and that Olmert had no intention of delivering.
"Why? Because Middle East instability is not about Israel – it is about them."
Really? So the people of the Middle East are to blame for the fact that Washington supports dictators in the region, who put the interests of the West and Israel before their own public?
It's really a scream watching the Israeli firsters on the blogs these last few days, running around with their hair on fire.
You period wont see a democracy
the egyptian military just won't tolerate islamists in the government mubarak might get thr boot i doubt it but you will not see true democracy in that region it tends to get mesy with divided interests in a country so large i believe there best option is a slow transition of the next decade or two to democracy will work best under a moderate military government look how well south korea turned out under such an arrangement.
President Obama would be impertinent to tell President Mubarak to stand down, and Professor Walt would be impertinent to instruct Mr Obama to do that.
This in fact is not what Mr Walt has called for, but it's exactly what some clumsy hand at Foreign Policy says he's doing. Here's the internal blurb for this piece: "The realist take: Why Obama must tell Mubarak to step down."
I don't know who wrote that nonsense, but what it seems to have done mainly is misrepresent Mr Walt, and stir up bad blood among Foreign Policy's readers. And ately, there's quite a lot of that silly argumentation.
"Even in the worst case where the treaty did lapse, this would not create an existential threat to Israel. Why? Because Egypt's military is no match for the IDF and Cairo's capabilities would deteriorate further once U.S. military aid was cut off. "
Because military weakness did a whole lot to stop Egypt from starting Yom Kippur.
Now Toro, take your 'worst-case' scenario and step it up a notch
Instead of a "United Arab Republic" between Egypt and Syria, you have a new "Islamist" alliance between an Egypt run by the Muslim Brotherhood, and an AKP led Turkey. Neither state which views Israel as legitimate.
I can imagine that "A World Without Zionism" Iran and Assad's Syria would like to make sure that they received their portion of the pie in such a fight.
You're looking at 1948 all over again.
Walt's transparent ignorance of the Middle East
"Even in the worst case where the treaty did lapse, this would not create an existential threat to Israel. Why? Because Egypt's military is no match for the IDF and Cairo's capabilities would deteriorate further once U.S. military aid was cut off. "
I had to read this sentence about 5 times to make sure you were saying what I thought you were. Having the 10th largest army in the world as a new enemy, when you've not considered them a potential threat for the past 30 years, is a strategic change like no other. To play it down as a minor issue is utter idiocy.
I'm going to second that opinion kerpin
The idea that the Israeli / Egyptian peace treaty could fail and not have huge ramifications is either total idiocy on Walt's part, or total ignorance of the entire Middle East.
Remember, the entire idea of Israel withdrawing from any of the land captured in 1967 was UN242, the old land for peace formula.
What we're hearing now is, well, the peace part really doesn't matter because hey, Israel can still fight Egypt and win.
But here's the thing, what it says to the rest of the Arab world is that, no, you don't have to have peace with Israel, because sooner or later, we're going to get it all back. Either we can fight them for it again and again, or the world will twist Israel's arm for us so that we get it back anyway.
Cost free militarization.
What Walt's argument also points to is the reality that the so-called "Arab" or "Saudi" peace plan, isn't worth the paper its printed on. To Israelis, who already have a dim view of the trustworthiness of any peace agreement with the Arab world, this would put a stake in the heart of any future peace agreement.
Intersting take Jacob, but a little paranoid
"What we're hearing now is, well, the peace part really doesn't matter because hey, Israel can still fight Egypt and win."
The US has given the Israelis a security guarantee. You can still count on the fact that if Israel were to find itself with it's back to the corner, the US would step in.
"Either we can fight them for it again and again, or the world will twist Israel's arm for us so that we get it back anyway."
The land that doesn't belong to Israel? Sure. Wouldn't you prefer it be done without bloodshed?
"What Walt's argument also points to is the reality that the so-called "Arab" or "Saudi" peace plan, isn't worth the paper its printed on."
On the contrary. Israel's rejectionism will go down as a massive missed opportunity. Unlike the treaty with Egypt, the Arab Peace initiative was not only signed by 22 Arab states, but accepted in principal by hard liners Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. I would not have relied entirely on the continuity of leadership in any one country.
Prof. Walt is being kind to you ZioExtremists, don't you get it? It's worth it to see Netanyahu's knees knocking together, as he awaits another Iran developing in Egypt. Let's see, you've got Hamas in Gaza, Hibullah in Lebanon, Iran up North, a likely Iran down South (per Netanyahu) . . . it's a matter of time before the Jordanians take matters into their own hands. You won't have a friend left in the neighborhood -- time to move back to New York and leave Palestine to the natives.
Living in a parallel universe is convenient, isn't it?
Given that most Israelis were born in Israel, and that among those born abroad a large group came from Arabic-speaking countries, you'll have a hard time implementing your "move back to NY" policy.
In any case, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Israel's fought off all of the Arab countries multiple times, in periods when it was much less prosperous and didn't have US support. If necessary, they'll kick their asses again.
Now you can go back to your lala land.
RE "And this might be precisely the sort of wake-up call...
...that Israel needs, to help it realize that its long-term security does not lie solely in military strength or territorial control." - Walt
WELCOME TO ISRAEL ~ "The Land of Delusions"™
FROM PAUL WOODWARD, War in Context, 01/30/11:
(excerpts)…Even as low-flying Egyptian air force Lockheed F-16s are currently attempting to shake fear into the hundreds of thousands of people gathered now in the center of Cairo, the people are showing their increasing defiance. And even now the Obama administration remains afraid of taking a strong stand in support of the Egyptian people.
We cannot honor the revolution in Egypt as impartial observers, uncertain about its outcome or its virtue. To believe in the revolution is to hold the unshakable conviction that human beings have the capacity to govern themselves and the right to live in freedom.
Egypt exposes the divide between those who fearlessly feel the thrill of freedom and those for whom freedom has become an object of fear…
…For those who remain the hostage of their own fears, freedom itself is another source of danger…
SOURCE - http://warincontext.org/2011/01/30/the-thrill-and-fear-of-freedom/
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
January/February 2011
-
Cover Story
-
Special Report
-
Feature
(20)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE