American politics
Obama and Cairo
Could it be any worse?
Jan 28th 2011, 16:57 by Lexington
[This post has been updated.]
SO NOW we know: as far as President Mubarak is concerned, he's not going anywhere. In a brief speech to the nation late on Friday night he said that he was dismissing his government and appointing a new one, but that he was staying—for the sake of Egypt, of course. He favoured more democracy and economic improvements, but he would not allow the chaos to spread.
Since the one thing the rioters seemed to agree on is that he had delighted them long enough after 30 years on the presidential throne, and should depart for Saudi Arabia, it is impossible to know whether his decision to brazen it out will quieten or inflame the situation. The latter, one imagines. But—and this is speculation only—it must be assumed that the president secured the backing of the armed forces before deciding to make his stand. Thus the stage could be set for a more violent confrontation on the streets, which remain thronged in defiance of an official curfew.
Shortly after Mubarak spoke, so did Barack Obama. He called on the Egyptian president to "give meaning" to his promises to improve the lot of the Egyptian people. But all this makes it a cruel irony that Mr Obama chose Cairo as the venue for the big speech in 2009 that was designed to start to restore America's relations with the Muslim world. One of the main promises he held out there—American help for Palestinian statehood—has recently run into the sand as the result of what even his admirers admit was a sequence of cack-handed diplomatic fumbles, notably the mistake of picking a fight over Israeli settlements and then backing down. Now he will be judged, not only in Egypt but well beyond, by whose side he takes in the showdown between Hosni Mubarak and the Egyptian people.
So far, the administration has been trying hard to avoid making a choice: Mubarak is our ally but we deplore violence and are on the side of "reform", goes the line. Hillary Clinton has called for restraint on all sides and for the restoration of communications. She said America supported the universal rights of the Egyptians, and called for urgent political, economic and social reforms. This is a sensible enough line to take, but sitting on the fence becomes increasingly uncomfortable as events unfold.
As for what is really going on behind the scenes in Washington, nothing is clear yet. A bloodbath that kept Mr Mubarak in power would be a tragedy in itself and a disaster for America's reputation in the region. Perhaps the least bad outcome for America would be for Mr Mubarak to stand down, but with power passing to a person or group broadly friendly to the superpower. But who?
The question of who would succeed Mr Mubarak, even if he died peacefully, has always been a riddle. He has never appointed a vice-president and was trying to wheedle his son Gamal into the job. If the (American armed and trained) army itself does not take over, there are various pro-Western grey eminences lurking behind the scenes. Omar Suleiman, the suave intelligence chief, is close to the Americans and has fairly intimate relations with Israel (UPDATE: he has now been named vice-president). Failing that, Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the IAEA nuclear watchdog, is at least a known quantity, though what America knows about him it does not much like. In American eyes he tilted too far towards Iran in his previous job, and is alarmingly hostile to Israel.But at least he is not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
One consoling thought going the rounds in Washington is that the Brotherhood's support is limited—and many of those demonstrating now against the regime would be appalled if the Brothers took over. But remember the Iranian revolution of 1979? That started with a broad group of opposition movements: secular leftists, liberals and trade unions as well as the Islamists. Only afterwards did the Islamists claim the revolution for themselves.
In this blog, our Lexington columnist enters America’s political fray and shares the many opinions that don't make it into his column each week. The column and blog are named after Lexington, Massachusetts, where the first shots were fired in the American war of independence.
Advertisement
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Cassandra | The World in 2012
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- Israel, Iran and America: Auschwitz complex
- Germany and Greece: Wolfgang's woes
- Russia's presidential election: It brings a tear to the eye
- Daily chart: Hitting women
- The National People's Congress: What makes a rubber stamp?
- Israel and America: A little more conversation
- Morals: Our great moral decline
- Poland and Lithuania: Bad blood
- The Republican race: Inconclusive Tuesday
- Nuclear power: The dream that failed
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- Israel, Iran and America: Auschwitz complex
- Morals: Our great moral decline
- Russia's presidential election: It brings a tear to the eye
- Putin's return: Corruption and dysfunction
- Syria: A tactical retreat
- The National People's Congress: What makes a rubber stamp?
- Economic opportunity for women: Where to be female
- Russia's presidency: The beginning of the end of Putin
- Brazil's financial industry: A global player made in Brazil
- JAS's cartoon: The week ahead
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter
See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
LaContra wrote: Jan 30th 2011 9:05 GMT Michael Dunne.
Your conversation is extremely interesting to me. I studied IR and PolySci at the Maxwell School in the 1970's. I recognize that the points that both of you make have validity. Perhaps the old terminoligy is outdated and does not reflect current realities, and the categories are insufficiently nuanced.
It may be time to come up with newer and more nuanced models, but which should also continue to make different historical periods' characterizations understandable. A lot of communication problems seem to involve inaccurate, or no longer accurate, terms, especially but not exclusively from the World War II and Cold War Eras.
Perhaps the two of you would consider working on it together?
carefully chosen name wrote: Jan 29th 2011 12:21 GMT A'Day:
buffoons-dictators
"I happen to know a family with several high ranking Egyptian police officers personally. They've done well from this regime, but they've been hoping for this day for years."
This is remarkably like my experience in the final year of the Shahanshah. I knew Officers of the Iranian police and military who detested his corrupt government and wanted him gone; ditto for western [especially American] educated professionals. They wanted the Shah out and were not interested in the possibility that the result could be worse. I doubt that they are happy with the present government of Iran.
The current situation in Egypt is playing out, as far as I can tell by reading these reports, in pretty much the same way as the final crisis of the Iranian monarchy did. I hope that the Egyptians will get a better deal out of their revolution than the Iranians did.
Egypt for the Egyptians, and a better future for them.
Not being egocentric, I won't repeat my fairly long post on DIA. In summary, I said that the US and Pres. Obama will be damned for anything that we do, and damned if we do nothing. Look at the posts on this site, some say intervene, others say stay out, and still others blame Obama for this situations very existence.
In my opinion, Egypt for the Egyptians. President Obama, what you should do is read the pertinent sections of the US Declaration of Independence on radio and TV, with translation into Arabic, and have the state department deliver a bilingual copy to various members of the Egyptian government.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
My best wishes and hopes for a better future go out to the Egyptian people.
Where was Obama during the violence in Iran over their fraudulent election? Sitting on his hands for five weeks while the freedom fighting Iranian opposition got smashed. Obama placates the enemies of the USA and castigates its friends. Regime change is needed in Washington, DC much more than Cairo.
EGYPT: WHAT SHOULD OBAMA AND AMERICA BE DOING NOW?
If you are on a poker table and playing your options are limited once the cards are dealt. You must play the cards you have and try to make the most out of them But you cannot change the cards for a better hand.
In Egypt the cards have been dealt and America must play the hand she got. Looking at America’s hand there are not much room to maneuver. The revolution has started and there is no way to predict how it would end. Mubarak might succeed to outwit his opponents as he had done in the past (not very likely); his opponents might succeed in overthrowing his regime peacefully (possible) or the revolution could turn into a blood bath consuming both sides and even spinning into Israel and other Arab nations (possible, but we pray not).
However it goes Obama’s and therefore America’s hands are now tied. They may try some of the tactics of the poker player, brag, look brave, or other things and see how far they can go.
So far Mr. Obama is playing his hands wonderfully well. At some times moving to prop up Mubarak; at other times moving to distance US from him; supporting the protesters and calling for peaceful demonstration and in the meantime extracting US nationals in Egypt out of harms way.
There are other things that US need to be doing now. One is to go underground by reducing US visibility in the struggle. At the bottom of this revolution is the 30 year reign of Mubarak who was a strong ally of US and the broker of Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel which the ordinary Egyptians are not as fond of as US and Mubarak; the denial of basic freedoms that US has the habit of preaching about and the deteriorating economy resulting in food scarcity. At the recesses of the minds of some Egyptians are US support of other despots in the Arab world and US’s strong support for Israel that knows no boundaries.
Israel right or wrong seems to be the motto.
By staying in the background Egyptians would vent their anger as they please but with US here, there, and everywhere, some or most of the anger would be vented on US. Her purposes and intentions would be suspect given their history. But time would come after the anger has subsided when US could emerge as a helping hand. When that time comes US would be well placed to lead the peace process.
The presence of Obama at the scene would be a palliative. Obama is not Bush or Reagan or any of the former Arab bullies or preachers in form of Robertson. Many Arabs regard him as having some understanding of their needs and suffering and in some ways empathizing with their struggles. His speeches from his inauguration as well as the Cairo speech were in tune with the Arab aspirations. He would receive a fair hearing.
But in the period of US’s hibernation US must review her relationships with Israel and the Arab world with a view to coming to some kind of balance. A situation where America promises before hand that it would protect Israel at UN if Palestine proposes an independent state because Israel is annexing East Jerusalem; that it would underwrite Israeli security no matter what provocation Israel meets to the Arab world; etc would not be a condition for a fair hearing. America’s rapprochement with all sides to the Middle East conflict would actually enhance Israeli security.
For the last half a century Israel has been more powerful than the entire Arab nations, but it has not secured for her the peace it needs. It is time to try something else like being a good neighbor. Remember when it was an act of faith that if, if somehow, Yasser Arafat were out of the picture there would be peace. Well he has been out for over a decade and there is still no peace.
Another area where Americans need to modify their behavior is in the fear of Muslims. Luckily Obama’s views on this are pragmatic. Muslims are just like the rest of mankind. They want jobs, peace for their families, freedom of worship, respect, dignity. They think of their religion just about as often as Christians or Jews or Hindus think of their faith which for most people is only once in a while. They are no more or less devoted to their religion.
They have good and bad people.
During this period of turmoil and America’s hibernation, US would still under the radar keep advocating for a less bloody transition to democracy. In advocating for this US must try to stay out of influencing who comes out on top. If US props up some one else, that person becomes US property and his failings would be US’s failing. Remember the lessons of propping up Saddam in US/Iranian conflict or the support of the Taliban during the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan. We are still paying the dues accumulated from those eras. If we allow the process to throw up who it will US can then deal with the person at an arms length.
Revolutions as Mao Tse Tung once remarked is not like embroidery. It is not neat.
Benjamin Obiajulu Aduba
Boston, Massachusetts
February 2, 2011
Two points. America must stay out of Arab internal affairs. The Egyptians are ultimately responsible for Mubarak. You can't export democracy. It's home grown. Sorry.
whats happening in Egypt is unfortunate. While the ideal policy would be to ask Mobarak to quit and let a liberal democracy take shape, we need to ask ourselves, if this is indeed possible. I do not know any democratic arab country - Of the 22 countries of the Arab League, only three can lay much of claim to being true democracies, and even those have major flaws. In such a world, when we talk of Mobarak, we see a leader who has ensured that Egypt doesnt fall ransom to islamic fundmentalists and Egypt as of today remains a liberal islamic country. He has survived 6 assasinations in this endeavour. Is he corrupt, has he supressed the voice of oppositition, has he violated human rights - yes. But then is he the worse or best of Arab dictators. I would say one of the best, if not the best.
Secondly, whats next if Mobarak goes - have we learned any lessons from the Iranian Revolution? Do we need another Ahmadinejad a few years down the line?
Asking for Mobarak's head is a seeminly easy and ideologically correct approach but no one wants to go into whats next. While I am not an expert into Arab matters, whatever little I know, I am farily confident that if Egypt was to vote tomorrow for its next president, Mobarak would win. These revolution have in them the classic sign of islamic fundamentalist using an opportunity to take over.
I hope pragmatism prevails rather than ideology and Egyptians continue to practice the liberal face of Islam providing a counterbalance to the authritarian islamic fundamentalist regimes.
The left around the world needs to wake up and analyse the situation correctly.
Yes the US has financial interests in the Middle East! And keeping the oil flowing is a major concern for such a large consumer such as America.
But America is a country founded on Christian fundamentals, that has evolved over the years since WWII into a Judeo-Christian country.
This means a vast majority of Americans believe in ZIONISM, yes ZIONISM! It's not just the American Jewry that vehemently believes in Zionism, American Christians of all denominations overwhelmingly believe in Zionism.
If you don't believe me, then next time you have a chance (if you are in America that is), strike a conversation with a Priest or a Minister of just about any denomination (yes, you read right, Priest as in the Catholic church). Ask them about Israel, and their position on it, and they will happily tell you that that land belongs to the Jews, and it is because GOD said so, as in the bible states as such. Which by the way it does, and most American Christians believe that the bible is the word of GOD...
So, all you leftists out there, stop saying that America only does business with unsavory strong man because of purely economic interests, because it is NOT true!!!
America and all of its past presidents (including the present president), its inumerous institutions ranging from congress, to its security forces (especially it's intelligence forces) to the smallest of NGOs stand by the Zionist principles. Therefore maintaining Israel and its Jewish citizens safe is a MAJOR concern for the US government!!!
Wake up leftists of all walks of life, across the globe, and remember what George W Bush said "God Blesses America". And make no mistake about it, that God is a Judeo-Christian.
The economist over the years has written extensively about this very subject (Thank you Economist, you are the light at the end of a very dark tunnel that is present day journalism across the world).
NSA, CIA, or any other acronym you guys go by, feel free to cut off my internet again, because guess what, I ain't gonna stop and I'll never believe in what you believe, never...
How about UK? Ou ya.. This one not installed despot dictator but cultivate alien israelis in arabs. You ended WWII but in 1948 you started the seeds of WWIII. Egypt till 2010 is exploitated by strategic alliance and forgot its people's fate to win development.
Sincerest note for UK. In old atlantic the US is a UK's baby. In new atlantic the US is an israelis' baby. Want proofs?
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Imagine all the people ... in misery. Good US and Israel. Everywhere. Fine. Good.
Peace should cheap. The price now inflates skyjet by US and Israel.
Imagine all the people...hahaha
Lets dance, Baby. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
Friends, if you install democracy by force, dont cry. We will dance 4your bad civilization. Lets drink, Baby, dont care them.
I think you must learn from US and Israel in thecase of Egypt. How to divide and qonquer and make failure states. How to drag world to useless wars. Egypt will next be Iran coz of west democracy destroys in full capacity to the humanitarian values in some countries by idiot wars. Time to compensate souls of the victims. Slowly but sure. Lets drink. See the show that US and Israel saw globally.
Russia, November 1917 : All Power to the Soviet
Egypt, November 2011? : All Power to the Masujid?
It is time for Obama to forcefully call for Mubarak to take his leave, ask the military to take control until FREE elections can be held in 6-12 months time. The Egyptian people must choose for themselves who shall lead them. Will they follow a course of a dynamic democracy or a totalitarian Islamic state? Time will tell, but the time for Obama to call for appropriate action and LEAD is now!
So the Americans shit on China for not being democratic and abusing human rights. The when the Egyptians wants to be democratic and want to kick the human rights abuser out of office, they tell the protesters to shut up.
Where is young Richard II to meet Wat Tyler on Black Heath? Or is this Athens, 507 BC when Cleithesnenes, a tyrant himself, led the Athenians up the Acropolis, birthing Athenian democracy?
America guards the status quo no matter what, it's civilian government is helpless before the imperialistic militarism that dominates foreign policy. Tunisia was the spark; and as Hanh said: the key word the west must learn from the east is: "Let." US Government: Leave it alone and win back your homefront, The Community of the Realm.
Windy Hill
"Since the one thing the rioters seemed to agree on is that he had delighted them long enough after 30 years on the presidential throne, and should depart for Saudi Arabia,..."
Check the Pride and Prejudice reference. Can't wait for the signs to start showing up in Tahrir Square:
"Mubarak, out! You've delighted us long enough!"
Oh, and leave it to the Economist to call them "rioters" rather than protesters or demonstrators.
@Michael Dunne wrote: Jan 30th 2011 7:06 GMT
“nkab;
…… As for Abe, Aso, and Fukuda, they were unprepared for the office of prime minister and proved talentless, an outcome of the LDP being in power too long and getting careless.
So trying to tie everything to the US is a rather lazy exercise that often seriously drifts from reality.”
------------------------------
“As for Abe, Aso, and Fukuda,….”. That’s what you think. Why were they elected as PM in the first place? Are you suggesting Japanese Diet members were all fools without better judgement?
“So trying to tie everything to the US is a rather lazy exercise….”?
Not me for a second. But you are “seriously drifting from reality” if you are neglecting the reality that there are tens of thousands of American troops stationed in both Korea and Japan with close to one hundred military bases there over such tiny geographic areas.
Whether they may be out there to protect the “defenseless” Koreans and Japanese people, or to protect the US interests for all I'd care, but they are no innocent bystanders by any stretch of imagination.
The US has given Egypt tons upon tons of military aids for a reason. Any similar rational holds there too.