The Face of America in Egypt

America indeed plays games everywhere. This time, the games it is playing in Egypt are becoming increasingly obvious. When Ben Ali fell in Tunisia and the youth upheaval started in Egypt, America began to worry. The situation in Egypt is different from the U.S.-backed protests in Iran opposing Ahmadinejad. This time America was very passive and suggested waiting for the situation to develop.

Only after the Egyptian police and security forces failed to forcibly obstruct the protesters and the military capably took over did America release a statement asking Mubarak not to use force against the mass movement. This statement was followed by a request that the Egyptian government enact reforms and hold a dialogue with its population.

As usual, America’s allies in Europe, primarily Britain, followed America’s steps and asked Mubarak to reform his system but not his government. Furthermore, America’s foreign affairs department made a statement that was even more “progressive,” and that was when Hillary Clinton asked Egypt to start an orderly transition. It was not clear what was meant by transition.

Mubarak promptly and faithfully followed this American “push.” First he appointed someone he was close with to be vice president, which had never happened in 30 years, and then replaced several ministers, including the prime minister and the internal affairs minister, who was in charge of the Egyptian security forces, known for their cruelty.

The youth movement that continued to grow, with a turnout of about a million people Tuesday, Feb. 2, greatly influenced Obama’s actions. After witnessing the resolve and courage of the protesters, President Obama sent a special envoy to Egypt and asked that Mubarak make a statement assuring he would not run again in the Egyptian presidential election this coming September.

Obama’s request was followed by a statement from Sen. Kerry, asking Mubarak to work together with the military and the civilian population to shape a transitional government. This is reminiscent of Suharto’s final efforts to shape the reform cabinet, which was rejected by the youth movement in Indonesia.

Mubarak immediately followed along and proclaimed through a televised broadcast that he would not run again, although he promised to protect safety in the process of governmental change until the presidential election this September.

The Delay Tactic

America’s attitude and position was no mystery to anyone. There was a strong impression that for each of Mubarak’s subsequent steps, he waited for direction from Washington. The American government, surprised by the rapid developments in the Middle East, felt at a loss and panicked. Within the last week, Obama has repeatedly held emergency sessions with various assistants, primarily those who grasp the significance of the current situation in Egypt, as if in an attempt to stop a rebellion in Texas or California.

Mubarak is a loyal ally of the United States and Israel. He has also had a role in creating “stability” and protecting the peace with Israel for the last 30 years. Mubarak even helped Israel in its efforts to weaken Hamas, Israel’s primary enemy in Gaza.

The fall of Mubarak will create uncertainty in Egypt regarding the importance of the West and Israel. Moreover, concern over the emergence of the post-Mubarak Muslim Brotherhood is evident. America and its allies have to try all options to possibly retain Mubarak. In the case of failure, America at least needs time to manipulate the process of changing Egypt’s ruler. The only path that is available, now that Mubarak is already cornered, is the use of the delay tactic.

With that tactic, America appears to side with the Egyptian population in refusing to allow Mubarak to run in the upcoming presidential elections; however, in reality, America and others only support Mubarak in Egypt in order to buy time to arrange their next strategy.

This is a very delayed step, in my opinion. The Egyptian population will not buy America’s newest offer. They are not naïve and can see America’s true intentions. If America sincerely wanted sovereignty for Egypt’s population, why did it wait until now to act? After the large upheaval has taken place, with hundreds of victims killed as well as thousands wounded among the people, America’s reaction is too late.

The Egyptian population only has one word for Mubarak: “irhal” (be gone), which they have repeatedly screamed during protests. Elbaradei, a moderate Egyptian figure and a former leader of the International Atomic Energy Agency who came to oppose Mubarak, stated that he was disappointed by the fickle American attitude. The face of America in Egypt is already too tarnished. The Egyptian population demands no less and no more than the departure of Mubarak from power in Egypt.

This two-faced American attitude is not a new thing. By preaching democracy while protecting authoritarian leaders in various countries, America is damaging its image. Also, urging for peace while sending troops to wars and selling weapons, barring Iran from owning nuclear power but letting Israel become the only nuclear power in the Middle East, promoting freedom of the press but bombing the Al-Jazeera news office in Baghdad, barring Almanar TV from reaching America and sanctioning countries that violate human rights, while severely violating human rights itself, both in and out of the U.S., are clear examples of the hypocrisy in American foreign policy.

There appears to be no turning back from this upheaval in the Middle East. If the American government remains unable to draw a valuable lesson from this situation and continues to focus its foreign policy on long-term domestic interests, then the American people will be at a loss. They repeatedly choose presidents and representatives that do not have a shared vision and only a short-sighted political orientation.