Thursday, February 03, 2011
Political Mayhem Thursday: Egypt on fire
With the unrest getting more intense in Egypt, there are two possible and perhaps conflicting goals for the United States:
1) Ensure the flow of oil and other trade
2) Promote the development of a democratic society in Egypt
Which should we choose? And how should we pursue it?
Comments:
<< Home
Prof.-
Our position in Egypt is about nineteen times more complicated than oil vs. democracy. If you have to break it down to two choices, it's really more like
1) Support the stable and outwardly peaceful regime of the dictator who even Joe Biden won't to call a dictator publicly because his stranglehold on power has been the only thing keeping Egypt from becoming a theocratic anti-Israel rocket launching site like Lebanon is now.
or
2) Stay true to our democratic values and promote free and open elections in Egypt, which will likely result in a government made up of leaders who feel that the main purpose of an Arab state should be the utter destruction of Israel and resisting all American involvement in the region. The Muslim Brotherhood's PR position is to preach non-violence, and the protesters have held to that, but the MB has been known to fund more extreme (even terrorist) groups and at least one of their leaders has already called for war with Israel.
But lucky for us armchair quarterbacks, the U.S. won't really have to make any snap decisions. The best thing for us to do is what the Obama administration is doing now. Wait it out, and hope we can salvage something like normal relations with the resulting Egyptian state to prevent future violence. The good news is that Egypt is not likely to opt for the kind of ayatollah-led "democracy" Iran has, since they don't have the same type of leading cleric figures and their "revolution" is a populist movement, rather than the anti-colonial Islamist one we saw in Iran.
Our position in Egypt is about nineteen times more complicated than oil vs. democracy. If you have to break it down to two choices, it's really more like
1) Support the stable and outwardly peaceful regime of the dictator who even Joe Biden won't to call a dictator publicly because his stranglehold on power has been the only thing keeping Egypt from becoming a theocratic anti-Israel rocket launching site like Lebanon is now.
or
2) Stay true to our democratic values and promote free and open elections in Egypt, which will likely result in a government made up of leaders who feel that the main purpose of an Arab state should be the utter destruction of Israel and resisting all American involvement in the region. The Muslim Brotherhood's PR position is to preach non-violence, and the protesters have held to that, but the MB has been known to fund more extreme (even terrorist) groups and at least one of their leaders has already called for war with Israel.
But lucky for us armchair quarterbacks, the U.S. won't really have to make any snap decisions. The best thing for us to do is what the Obama administration is doing now. Wait it out, and hope we can salvage something like normal relations with the resulting Egyptian state to prevent future violence. The good news is that Egypt is not likely to opt for the kind of ayatollah-led "democracy" Iran has, since they don't have the same type of leading cleric figures and their "revolution" is a populist movement, rather than the anti-colonial Islamist one we saw in Iran.
Jesse Davis makes a good point. If only (sigh) our choices were simply oil or democracy. We could just "drill, baby, drill" here at home and allow everyone to be free.
No doubt about it, the thirty years of Mubarak have been, on the whole, good for the world and good for US interests. In a very real way, the loss of this regime is a scary event. We have no idea what comes next, and we are virtually powerless at this point to play much of a role in shaping the future.
On the other hand, Mubarak is a dictator. Under any rational political philosophy, the people of Egypt have the right to demand his departure. Very nearly nothing we can do about it except hold on and hope for the best.
And, all in all, I give the Obama administration a solid B on reacting to a horrible situation over which they have no control.
No doubt about it, the thirty years of Mubarak have been, on the whole, good for the world and good for US interests. In a very real way, the loss of this regime is a scary event. We have no idea what comes next, and we are virtually powerless at this point to play much of a role in shaping the future.
On the other hand, Mubarak is a dictator. Under any rational political philosophy, the people of Egypt have the right to demand his departure. Very nearly nothing we can do about it except hold on and hope for the best.
And, all in all, I give the Obama administration a solid B on reacting to a horrible situation over which they have no control.
I'm with Jesse and WF. This is not a simple either/or. And I also think that the Administration is doing a good job so far. They want Mubarak to go, but haven't totally burned bridges.
Egypt is the largest Arab nation by leaps and bounds and the majority of people there are not radical "Islamists." Peace with Israel has been good for Egypt and most Egyptians know it.
The main sources of revenue for Egypt are U.S. aid and "Western" tourism. And only the craziest of crazies would want to cut off either source of funding. If some militant anti-Western group did take over, they wouldn't last long without the money that those two sources provide. There would be no money to spend on placating the masses..... and in Egypt, there are truly a whole lot of "masses."
Egypt is the largest Arab nation by leaps and bounds and the majority of people there are not radical "Islamists." Peace with Israel has been good for Egypt and most Egyptians know it.
The main sources of revenue for Egypt are U.S. aid and "Western" tourism. And only the craziest of crazies would want to cut off either source of funding. If some militant anti-Western group did take over, they wouldn't last long without the money that those two sources provide. There would be no money to spend on placating the masses..... and in Egypt, there are truly a whole lot of "masses."
I was too brief in describing that dichotomy-- I meant in the short term. I do think that our immediate responses are either to back the regime in some way (to ensure stability) or push HM out (to encourage democracy).
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, but it appears that many commentators (not necessarily here) are all for promoting democracy in the Middle East - except when it threatens our strategic interests.
In that case, it seems, democracy sure as hell can take a backseat.
So much for principle.
In that case, it seems, democracy sure as hell can take a backseat.
So much for principle.
If the choices are democracy or Mubarak's dictatorship, its democracy every time.
Throw in these options as well, however:
-Mubarak and his coterie crush the opposition and stay in power...after the U.S. told him to leave. He and his people are NOT pleased and take actions that make things worse. There's not a whole heck of a lot we can do that will keep this from happening. We could cut off aid ASAP, but how will that help short term? Or even long term.
-Chaos. No leaders, no government, street fighting for weeks, followed by military takeover. probably not Islamic radicals, but probably not good either.
Obama, John Kerry, John McCain and other most other responsible, serious current and former elected and appointed foreign policiy leaders from both parties all seem to be singing from the same songsheet: Mubarak has to leave, now, and the transition has to be orderly. But as Robert Gibbs said yesterday, we don't have the ability to manage this process.
Throw in these options as well, however:
-Mubarak and his coterie crush the opposition and stay in power...after the U.S. told him to leave. He and his people are NOT pleased and take actions that make things worse. There's not a whole heck of a lot we can do that will keep this from happening. We could cut off aid ASAP, but how will that help short term? Or even long term.
-Chaos. No leaders, no government, street fighting for weeks, followed by military takeover. probably not Islamic radicals, but probably not good either.
Obama, John Kerry, John McCain and other most other responsible, serious current and former elected and appointed foreign policiy leaders from both parties all seem to be singing from the same songsheet: Mubarak has to leave, now, and the transition has to be orderly. But as Robert Gibbs said yesterday, we don't have the ability to manage this process.
People should be free to determine their own political futures, and if the Muslim Brotherhood or extremist elements in Egypt take over, then that's their choice.
Then again, it would further destabilize the region, lead to a lot of death and destruction, and actually work against the ends of freedom and self-determination because it would likely replace an autocrat with a theocracy that would install its own de-facto autocrat, just like what happened with Iran. And in a few decades we'd see another revolution against the theocratic state.
It would be politically impractical for us to take a strict non-interventionist policy if by doing so we could prevent strife, suffering and the rise of people that would use that instability to exploit and enslave a populace. On the other hand, if we don't allow people to dictate the course of their own political lives, we just continue a legacy of imperialism that does more harm than good.
We should encourage Mubarak to peacefully cede power to the people, and encourage the people (with diplomacy, not threats) to adopt a peaceful, moderate government that will contribute to the overall health of the region.
Now, as to how we do that... hell if I know.
Then again, it would further destabilize the region, lead to a lot of death and destruction, and actually work against the ends of freedom and self-determination because it would likely replace an autocrat with a theocracy that would install its own de-facto autocrat, just like what happened with Iran. And in a few decades we'd see another revolution against the theocratic state.
It would be politically impractical for us to take a strict non-interventionist policy if by doing so we could prevent strife, suffering and the rise of people that would use that instability to exploit and enslave a populace. On the other hand, if we don't allow people to dictate the course of their own political lives, we just continue a legacy of imperialism that does more harm than good.
We should encourage Mubarak to peacefully cede power to the people, and encourage the people (with diplomacy, not threats) to adopt a peaceful, moderate government that will contribute to the overall health of the region.
Now, as to how we do that... hell if I know.
Lane-
Best I can figure, we'll end up using our tried-and-true methods of shuttle diplomacy to realize our future objectives in Egypt. The new regime (whether it's pro-Mubarak or aligned with the MB) will pay us the necessary lip service but will have to make sure it avoids the appearance of undue influence. So we'll look to our nice buddies like Saudi Arabia to exert whatever pressure they can, which of course has no parallel whatsoever to our relationship with the Mubarak regime.
Best I can figure, we'll end up using our tried-and-true methods of shuttle diplomacy to realize our future objectives in Egypt. The new regime (whether it's pro-Mubarak or aligned with the MB) will pay us the necessary lip service but will have to make sure it avoids the appearance of undue influence. So we'll look to our nice buddies like Saudi Arabia to exert whatever pressure they can, which of course has no parallel whatsoever to our relationship with the Mubarak regime.
Isn’t Halliburton ensuring the flow of oil? Anyway, if you all interested in a different angle check out the time-line of Egypt’s unrest on no other than Al Jazeera’s website. Yes, I’m not even kidding you. Ironically enough this all started on a national holiday commemorating the police forces, the protest organizers using Facebook and Twitter inciting people to voice their frustrations against all ills that naturally come with any form of oligarchy. Seriously, Facebook and Twitter? Then just when I thought these are not your regular Taliban, we get the man riding the camel…
Post a Comment
<< Home
