Conditional Freedom
Published in Sueddeutsche Zeitung
(Germany) on 28 January 2011
by R. Klüver (link to original)
Hosni Mubarak is Barack Obama’s most important ally in the Middle East. Therefore, the U.S. is only supporting reforms halfheartedly — they need Mubarak as a bastion against the radical Islamists of the region. Either way, a nightmare is lurking from the U.S. point of view.
As if the U.S. didn’t already have enough grievances in the Middle East. So frighteningly little is going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians that Barack Obama didn’t even mention the peace treaty he once actively demanded in his speech last Tuesday evening before Congress. In Tunisia, the Americans were so surprised by the downfall of their dictator that it threw them for a real loop. And in Lebanon, a pro-Syrian prime minister and friend of Washington’s was recently ousted. So it goes now with Egypt.
From the U.S.’ standpoint, the situation could develop into a nightmare if Egypt — in somewhat of a contrast to Tunisia — allows strong radical Islamists to take advantage of the unrest and take over the government. “That would lead to a fundamental shift in the power structure of the region, which would present itself as a far greater threat to U.S. interests than even the Iranian Revolution,” according to a study by the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations.
Sure enough, the mass protests on the streets of Cairo are presenting the U.S. government with a dilemma. On one side is Obama’s clear policy of supporting freedom of opinion and human rights worldwide. On the other side, Hosni Mubarak’s government is America’s most important ally in the region. For decades, Cairo has reliably represented U.S. interests, and only to Afghanistan, Israel and Iraq does the U.S. provide more monetary aid. Egypt’s army alone is showered with $1.3 billion yearly, an army that not only serves the national defense, but also serves to protect the inner regime. On Wednesday, the first rumors arose that soldiers were being stationed in the city of Suez in order to help contain the demonstrations — allegedly with arms and crowd-control devices that were financed by the U.S.
The indecisiveness in Washington was perceived clearly by the middle of the week. “We’re monitoring this situation,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs somewhat naively put on the record, and continued with a vague stance: "We consistently have advocated for the universal rights of assembly, of free speech, of political reform." Gibbs referred to the speech of his boss two years ago in Cairo, in which Obama had reminded the authoritarian regimes in the Middle East that the people of the Arabian world inevitably seek more personal freedom. He also made it plain however, that “Egypt is an important ally.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also spoke with carefully-chosen words. “All concerned people or leaders should ensure that the situation in that region, and particularly now in Egypt, does not and should not lead to further violence,”
she said, and urged for the regime in Cairo to let the protests run their course and to not block communications media such as Twitter and Facebook — a plea that Mubarak’s security network obviously did not appreciate.
However, the regime in Cairo should not misunderstand a further plea from Clinton. She called for the government to finally follow through with long-demanded (also from the U.S.) reforms in earnest, and added: “The United States is determined to work together with Egypt and the Egyptian people in order to achieve these goals.” This may be an indication that Washington is continuing to develop contacts with the opposition, and that’s what needs to happen, because the greatest and most influential opposition group by far is the not so America-friendly Muslim Brotherhood.
U.S. diplomats are exerting themselves for talks with all opposition groups, not just with left and liberal opponents of the regime. “This by itself would likely change the Mubarak regime’s behavior only slightly,” according to a paper from the Brookings Institution, one of most prestigious Washington political research centers. “But that's not necessarily the most significant objective for us. Far more important is to send a clear message to the Egyptian people that we support their democratic aspirations and that we will no longer offer unqualified support to a regime that systematically represses those aspirations.”
That this statement be perfectly understood – and appreciated – in Egypt may be the only hope of the U.S. government. The alternatives for Washington would really not be so enjoyable. Even if the radical Islamists don’t carry through, any other regime would probably be difficult for the U.S. to continue working with closely after Mubarak’s fall, due to the strong anti-American sentiment in the country.
As if the U.S. didn’t already have enough grievances in the Middle East. So frighteningly little is going on between the Israelis and the Palestinians that Barack Obama didn’t even mention the peace treaty he once actively demanded in his speech last Tuesday evening before Congress. In Tunisia, the Americans were so surprised by the downfall of their dictator that it threw them for a real loop. And in Lebanon, a pro-Syrian prime minister and friend of Washington’s was recently ousted. So it goes now with Egypt.
From the U.S.’ standpoint, the situation could develop into a nightmare if Egypt — in somewhat of a contrast to Tunisia — allows strong radical Islamists to take advantage of the unrest and take over the government. “That would lead to a fundamental shift in the power structure of the region, which would present itself as a far greater threat to U.S. interests than even the Iranian Revolution,” according to a study by the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations.
Sure enough, the mass protests on the streets of Cairo are presenting the U.S. government with a dilemma. On one side is Obama’s clear policy of supporting freedom of opinion and human rights worldwide. On the other side, Hosni Mubarak’s government is America’s most important ally in the region. For decades, Cairo has reliably represented U.S. interests, and only to Afghanistan, Israel and Iraq does the U.S. provide more monetary aid. Egypt’s army alone is showered with $1.3 billion yearly, an army that not only serves the national defense, but also serves to protect the inner regime. On Wednesday, the first rumors arose that soldiers were being stationed in the city of Suez in order to help contain the demonstrations — allegedly with arms and crowd-control devices that were financed by the U.S.
The indecisiveness in Washington was perceived clearly by the middle of the week. “We’re monitoring this situation,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs somewhat naively put on the record, and continued with a vague stance: "We consistently have advocated for the universal rights of assembly, of free speech, of political reform." Gibbs referred to the speech of his boss two years ago in Cairo, in which Obama had reminded the authoritarian regimes in the Middle East that the people of the Arabian world inevitably seek more personal freedom. He also made it plain however, that “Egypt is an important ally.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also spoke with carefully-chosen words. “All concerned people or leaders should ensure that the situation in that region, and particularly now in Egypt, does not and should not lead to further violence,”
she said, and urged for the regime in Cairo to let the protests run their course and to not block communications media such as Twitter and Facebook — a plea that Mubarak’s security network obviously did not appreciate.
However, the regime in Cairo should not misunderstand a further plea from Clinton. She called for the government to finally follow through with long-demanded (also from the U.S.) reforms in earnest, and added: “The United States is determined to work together with Egypt and the Egyptian people in order to achieve these goals.” This may be an indication that Washington is continuing to develop contacts with the opposition, and that’s what needs to happen, because the greatest and most influential opposition group by far is the not so America-friendly Muslim Brotherhood.
U.S. diplomats are exerting themselves for talks with all opposition groups, not just with left and liberal opponents of the regime. “This by itself would likely change the Mubarak regime’s behavior only slightly,” according to a paper from the Brookings Institution, one of most prestigious Washington political research centers. “But that's not necessarily the most significant objective for us. Far more important is to send a clear message to the Egyptian people that we support their democratic aspirations and that we will no longer offer unqualified support to a regime that systematically represses those aspirations.”
That this statement be perfectly understood – and appreciated – in Egypt may be the only hope of the U.S. government. The alternatives for Washington would really not be so enjoyable. Even if the radical Islamists don’t carry through, any other regime would probably be difficult for the U.S. to continue working with closely after Mubarak’s fall, due to the strong anti-American sentiment in the country.