-
DOMINOS
Will the Arab Revolutions Spread?
-
SHARP EYE
Watching Egypt, But Not on Al Jazeera
-
TWITTER REVOLUTION?
The New Arab Media Space
Posted By Marc Lynch
Saturday, January 29, 2011 - 2:06 PM
Share
After President Obama spoke last night about the situation in Egypt, my Twitter feed and inbox filled up with angry denunciations, with lots of people complaining bitterly that he had endorsed Mubarak's grim struggle to hold on to power, missed an historic opportunity, and risked sparking a wave of anti-Americanism. Once I actually read the transcript of his remarks, though, I felt much better. I think the instant analysis badly misread his comments and the thrust of the administration's policy. His speech was actually pretty good, as is the rapidly evolving American policy. The administration, it seems to me, is trying hard to protect the protestors from an escalation of violent repression, giving Mubarak just enough rope to hang himself, while carefully preparing to ensure that a transition will go in the direction of a more democratic successor.
It's crucial to understand that the United States is not the key driver of the Egyptian protest movement. They do not need or want American leadership -- and they most certainly are not interested in "vindicating" Bush's freedom agenda or the Iraq war, an idea which almost all would find somewhere between laughable, bewildering, and deeply offensive. Suspicion of American intentions runs deep, as does folk wisdom about decades of U.S. collaboration with Mubarak. They are not really parsing Hilary Clinton's adjectives. Their protest has a dynamic and energy of its own, and while they certainly want Obama to take their side forcefully and unequivocally they don't need it.
What they do need, if they think about it, is for Obama to help broker an endgame from the top down --- to impose restraints on the Egyptian military's use of violence to repress protests, to force it to get the internet and mobile phones back online, to convince the military and others within the regime's inner circle to ease Mubarak out of power, and to try to ensure that whatever replaces Mubarak commits to a rapid and smooth transition to civilian, democratic rule. And that's what the administration is doing. The administration's public statements and private actions have to be understood as not only offering moral and rhetorical support to the protestors, or as throwing bones to the Washington echo chamber, but as working pragmatically to deliver a positive ending to a still extremely tense and fluid situation.
I completely understand why activists and those who desperately want the protestors to succeed would be frustrated --- anything short of Obama gripping the podium and shouting "Down With Mubarak!" probably would have disappointed them. But that wasn't going to happen, and shouldn't have. If Obama had abandoned a major ally of the United States such as Hosni Mubarak without even making a phone call, it would have been irresponsible and would have sent a very dangerous message to every other U.S. ally. That doesn't mean, as some would have it, that Obama has to stick with Mubarak over the long term -- or even the weekend -- but he simply had to make a show of trying to give a long-term ally one last chance to change.
The key to the administration's emerging strategy is the public and private signal that this is Mubarak's last chance, that the administration does not expect him to seize it, and that the U.S. has clear expectations of those who might succeed him. The key line in his remarks here is this:
"When President Mubarak addressed the Egyptian people tonight, he pledged a better democracy and greater economic opportunity. I just spoke to him after his speech and I told him he has a responsibility to give meaning to those words, to take concrete steps and actions that deliver on that promise."
This is not the language of capitulation to Mubarak's empty promises of reform. It's a pretty sharp challenge to him to demonstrate serious change immediately, which in no way commits to backing Mubarak if he fails to do so. And comments made by various administration officials suggest that they don't really expect him to be able to deliver. This blunt conditionality has to be understood in tandem with White House Spokseman Robert Gibbs' carefully chosen words that U.S. economic and military aid to Egypt would now be reviewed -- a direct, almost unprecedented form of pressure on Egypt for which many democracy activists have clamored for years to no avail.
It's also crucial that the U.S. is signaling directly and clearly to the Egyptian military that the administration will not accept a massive, bloody escalation in repressive force. Secretary of State Clinton's statement well-crafted message yesterday morning, reinforced by Gibbs and then Obama, was important: not just wringing their hands over the violence, as many seem to think, but sending a pretty clear and strong signal to the Egyptian army about American red lines. That might not be as morally satisfying as the more "full blooded" language which many would like to hear, but in the end it is likely to be crucial to brokering a decent endgame.
What happens next? I really don't think that Mubarak's gambit of dismissing the government is going to work. The protestors want to be rid of him, not of a faceless government of technocrats. His speech last night had an air of desperation, disconnect and delusion which will only feed the protests. Al-Jazeera has been filling up with prominent Egyptian figures disparaging Mubarak, and there's a palpable sense of people positioning themselves for a new era. It isn't over yet --- Mubarak is likely calculating that if he can survive only a few more days, the protest fever will break and he can go back to the old status quo. It's not like he had much legitimacy or popular support before these protests, and his regime has long been comfortable ruling without it. But the rush of events has a feel of finality to it. It's hard to believe, and it's far from certain even now, but as an accelerated Ben Ali script plays out it really is possible that Mubarak could be gone by tonight.
And then will come the hard part. This part of the speech, which went largely unremarked, may prove to be the key to the future: "When I was in Cairo, shortly after I was elected President, I said that all governments must maintain power through consent, not coercion. That is the single standard by which the people of Egypt will achieve the future they deserve." If the U.S. can help the Egyptian people achieve those aspirations, then it will be a major diplomatic success which resonates far beyond Egypt's borders.
Official White House Photo by Pete Souza
When gods want to punish us, they answer our prayers.
Before supporting these so-called winds of change, let us think what will replace them.
All indications are there that if Mubarak’s regime was to collapse in Egypt, Islamic fundamentalists will most likely come to power because they have the largest non-government political organization there.
Democratic dispensation in Pakistan after Musharraf has exposed the true nature of Islamic fundamentalist character of Pakistan as witnessed by public outpouring of support for the killer of Punjab governor. And democratic government also has been subservient to Pakistani Army when it comes to supporting Taliban factions sheltered in Pakistan and killing US/NATO troops daily in Afghanistan since 2001.
Democratic elections in Palestinian territories brought radical Hamas to power.
When US supported change in Iran in 1979, little did it know what was to follow Shah’s regime.
Same scenario will repeat in Algeria if military rule was to crumble.
When US supported change in Iran in 1979!
Interesting Marty and their was I thinking the US was telling the Shah to crack down and ride it out well past the point of no return.
Don't forget that these are the people of Egypt and the simplest concept of democracy suggests that they have right to define their leadership. A leadership that is elected by consent NOt to serve the interest of the United States. Otherwise then what is all the noise the U.S is making about democracy in Iran? Afterall the Iranians hold elections and the president serves no more than two terms as Mubarak whom the U.S. proffered for over three decaeds all in thr name of stability. The Egyptians have more than paid for that with the brutality and emergency rule they have lived with all these years. Allow them to experience "freedom of choice for once.
The problem with Americans is we get stuck up with analogies.
None of the analogies you present are similar to what is happening in Egypt now. The closest being the Iran revolution was at a very different time in world history.
Muslim brotherhood in Egypt does not have as much power as you claim and does not have any leadership similar to ayatollah which took power in Iran.
Obama is not Carter and Egypt today is not Iran, no matter how hard people try to push that point.
First off - any successes by our intelligence services and therefore the Obama administration will almost always be unseen and unreported. Obama has several audiences to be mindful of:
#1 - The current Egyptian government
#2 - The Egyptian people
#3 - Existing U.S. allies
#4 - American citizens' perceptions
For all of the discussion in America of removing U.S. foreign aid....this is a situation where our financial assistance to the Egyptian military plays the role of a massive bargaining chip. The fact that we provide over 1.3 billion annually just to their military...must give the current Egyptian military brass pause. And some of the criticisms of Obama or prior American aid to the Egyptians would do well to understand that there is a ton of nuance in the Egyptians perceptions of the U.S. Its interesting that they trust the Egyptian military more than most other institutions and the U.S. happens to be a major contributor of their military. And there is a great deal of discontent in Egypt relative to Obama's promise of change as shown in the link below:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/137759/arab-countries-turn-leadership-2010.aspx
So - Obama has a very difficult balance to maintain as he is no doubt trying to help negotiate a peaceful transfer of power that will both benefit U.S. strategic interests and foster the development of a successful Arab democracy molded in the form of Turkey. Any assistance that we have given to Mubarak in the past was not out of love for him personally but for fear of "the unknown"....and helping to prop up an unpopular dictator/monarch only stains Egyptians' perceptions of the U.S.
Only time will tell if Obama and other leaders in the EU are able to successfully influence the key players behind the scenes.....or if this ends up being Iran circa 2011 edition (which I do not believe to be the case).
Thanks for this - I started feeling like I was the only person not flipping out over the speech.
(BTW - you spelled the Sec of State's name incorrectly - it's Hillary. Come on, now - that's an insult.)
What would be the downsides of publicly offering Mubarak $1 billion to "get on the plane"? I think that the public offer would buy more goodwill on the street than the $20-$30 B we have sent to Egypt in the last 30 years.
Vice President Suleiman would take over until the elections, giving us time to try to get a fair election out of the NDP system.
The first downside I think of is the demonstration effect--it says to other pro-American strongmen that we will abandon them as we abandoned the Shah and Somoza. On the other hand, besides Mubarak, whom are we talking about? Jordan's Abdullah? The Saudi Abdullah? Karzai? Maliki? Abbas? All of them are playing their own games and spinning their own webs anyway.
Then everyone in the region would realize what US foreign policy is all about. "While you can keep your people in check, we support you. When you can't and ready to jump ship, we're here for you". Then every little American dictator would know their place. The people would be ready to give them the final push they need. Pan-Arab union, here they go!
Something many people have noticed during Barack Obama's career in public life is that, on a personal level, he is a bit of a cold fish. He has allies and associates but few real friends; if subordinates make a public relations mistake they quickly find themselves described as "a distraction" and moved offstage.
This is one of the less attractive aspects of the President's personality, and in the big picture it probably makes Obama less effective as President than he might be. However, I have a hunch it is relevant to the situation in Egypt right now. Former President Bush was prone to personalize foreign relations, identifying Putin with Russia, Musharraf with Pakistan, Sharon with Israel. In this situation, he would have identified Mubarak with Egypt and stood by an ally, the big empty talk of Bush's "freedom agenda" notwithstanding.
Obama won't. He will have no sentimental attachment toward Mubarak or his government; if the Egyptian leadership is expecting loyalty from Obama because of its past friendship toward the United States, they won't get it. If Mubarak is able to crush, divert or otherwise thwart Egyptian public discontent with his government on his own, that is one thing. If he seems to be teetering on the edge, though, Obama won't lift a finger on his behalf.
That's appropriate in this context. What many Americans and most Arabs do not understand about United States support of government's like Mubarak's is that it doesn't exist because we want deep involvement in the internal politics of Arab countries, but rather and precisely because we don't. That Mubarak has aligned his government's policy with American interests gives it a legitimate claim on our attention as long as it sustains its grip on Egypt. If it struggles to do so, Obama will regard this as Mubarak's problem, not America's. He will be right to think this way.
really?
I wonder how many Egyptians would concur.
from the NY Times Lede blog :1157 EST, today
note the final five paragraphs:
"My colleagues Nicholas Kulish and Souad Mekhennet report from the streets of Alexandria, in northern Egypt:
For lack of an organized plan, demonstrators in Alexandria marched back and forth along the Corniche on Saturday afternoon, slowly gathering followers, their numbers climbing from the hundreds into the thousands.The crowd included men and women of all ages, in sharp contrast to the largely young and mostly male protesters who clashed with police on Friday.
Protesters were clear in their demand for President Hosni Mubarak to step down, with chants that had once called generally for an end to the regime or the government were now more explicitly directed at Mr. Mubarak by name.
"We will be in the streets until he steps down," said Rawia al-Ali, 52, a nurse. "Thirty years is enough," she said.
"I've been in the streets from the 25th on and I'm going to remain in the streets until Hosni Mubarak and his friends leave the country," said Marwat Saleh, 43, who owns a small tourism company.
Protesters voiced significant anger at the United States for supporting Mr. Mubarak, rushing up to American reporters on the streets of Alexandria unprompted to ask why the United States continued to back the Egyptian government.
"We are very disillusioned by President Obama's speech," said Muhammad Shafai, 35, a lawyer, who called for Mr. Obama to distance himself from Mr. Mubarak.
Mr. Shafai and others were also sharply critical of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech on the situation in Egypt.
"We are calling for protesters in Cairo to take over the U.S. embassy, like Iran has done," said Mr. Shafai. "We want the U.S. to apologize for all the support for Mubarak and all that they have done to the Egyptian people over 30 years."
Since his move to D.C./Obama's arrival in power Lynch has been Obama's biggest sycophant on all things Middle EAst. A few criticisms in retrospect, but basically always toeing the party line. Interesting to see how Lynch is already moving away from his Walt-like affirmations of the stability of these regimes. Fascinating how quickly formerly independent academics accomodate the D.C. game. And how quickly a constructivist scholar who should be paying attention to normative movements in the Middle East replaced that with platitudes and variations on the common wisdom.
Re Johnbragg, Zathras and Nechaev
Re Johnbragg, Zathras and Nechaev
John you forgot Yemen. The Sana’a regime are having their own Tunisian experience and are another quasi legitimate government with limited public backing which have been aided and abetted by the US (and KSA) due to it being useful in pursuing other, non Yemeni, policy objectives.
Egypt, unlike Tunisia & Yemen, is a big enough fish to be of interest in its own right but is still small potatoes, domestically, compared to Israel. Taking the purely Egyptian context first the US would like to see a shift to a more democratic government but without any great shift in the Egyptian foreign policy positions of US interest. This is of course impossible as the primary feature of the ‘moderate Arab States’ is that they tow the US foreign policy line far more closely – particularly in relation to US/Israeli desires – than they could get away with if they were obliged to take the wants of their citizens into consideration. Of the US’s friends in the area Tunisia is gone, Egypt is seriously off balance, I don’t fancy Yemen’s chances if Egypt goes and Lebanon has just had something of a power shift without the Tunisian effect.
What happens to Gaza in particular, and the balance of power more generally, if Egypt manages to rid itself of Mubarak? The Tunisian model has definitely taught the Arab publics not to just except a scapegoat – however powerful – if it just reverts to business as normal with some different faces. If we assume Mubarak goes, along with most of his cronies, and a ‘government of national unity’ emerges with ElBaradei as interim figurehead, the MB included but not dominant and the Army as guarantor of a democratic transition. What would a more representative government looklike from an FP point of view? The US has been very happy with Mubarak’s domestic anti-MB position because it dovetails with its preference for Fatah over Hamas when dealing with the Palestinians. It has also facilitated the siege of the Gaza strip but if MB are in power in Cairo, or at least have a say, what are the odds of the Gaza boarder remaining sealed and Hamas remaining persona non grata. The isolation of Hamas, and its powerbase, is a crucial element in the maintenance of the status quo. A MB friendly government in Egypt, a Hezbollah dominated government in Lebanon, and open Gaza boarder leave the US with much bigger FP problems than merely a change in the personnel in Cairo.
This is why I think Zathras’ conclusion “Obama will regard this as Mubarak's problem, not America's. He will be right to think this way.” Is wrong because if Egypt was a democracy, and was changing personnel only, this might be correct but this could be more along the Iranian model for all we can tell at this stage. We do not know what will emerge but if you look at Egyptian polling data the US must start praying hard that it is not anything too democratic and reflective of the expressed attitudes to the USA or Israel.
Nechaev’s conclusion “"We are calling for protesters in Cairo to take over the U.S. embassy, like Iran has done," said Mr. Shafai. "We want the U.S. to apologize for all the support for Mubarak and all that they have done to the Egyptian people over 30 years."” Also makes it clear that it is likely there will be a price to be paid for backing a regime over its people. While Egypt may not have been as extreme as Iran I still fear it will be a long road persuading the Egyptian, and wider Arab public, that they have not been sold down the river in furtherance of greater US policy goals in Israel and Iran.
You're right. I forgot Yemen.
As for Egypt, I have to assume that the Mubarak dynasty is finished, by the September election at the latest and the question is What Next. If the US is seen as instrumental in helping remove Mubarak, then there is some claim on the new regime, whether it is honored or not. If the US is seen by the new regime as having been neutral or pro-Mubarak, then there is no claim, just the raw leverage of the aid package.
In the Arab world, American words may not matter, because American deeds, whatever the words, have been pretty consistent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/weekinreview/30cooper.html?ref=world
The Arab people know that the US wants to keep all Arab dictatorial governments in place--including that of Syria. That is understood. It is all for the benefit for imperialism and Israel.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-and-bush-on-egypt.htm
Marc Lynch is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
Read More
January/February 2011
-
Cover Story
-
Special Report
-
Feature
(14)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE