America Changed Faster Than Egypt

The Middle Eastern turmoil is spreading toward many other countries. Egypt is America’s pillar in North Africa and the Middle East; securing Egypt’s friendship with America and Israel is the U.S.’ strategic interest for this region. If during Obama’s term the U.S. loses Egypt’s cooperation because of the turmoil in the Middle East, then America’s national interests will face serious challenges and this presidential term will be remembered as a laughingstock.

However, challenges and opportunities always coexist. Mubarak’s successor could potentially be unfriendly with the U.S. and Israel, but not necessarily America’s enemy, so long as America responds properly. Through the chaos in the Middle East, America may not win, but they might not lose either.

In a global context, what kind of friend does America need? The best would be one with similar values, at the very least one that does not harm America in areas of tangible interests that have nothing to do with values. From a values standpoint, the U.S. has long advocated for equality and equal rights, which could never be mentioned in the same breath with Saudi Arabia’s feudal royal family and Egypt’s modern “pharaoh.”

However, America unfortunately has a tight relationship with both Saudi Arabia and Egypt. This is not because they share the same values, but because the U.S.’ geographical and energy strategies rely on the existence of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Thus, regardless of who takes power in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, so long as the U.S.’ tangible interests are not challenged, the U.S. is willing to compromise on values, and it is from here that a strategic cooperation is formed.

The collapse of the Mubarak regime caters to Americans’ deep sense of values; thus America’s officials could accept this. Aside from values, Washington is unsure of whether the U.S.’ geographical interests will be preserved. So long as Egypt’s new leader can stabilize U.S.-Israeli relations, the U.S. does not care who takes power in Cairo. Of course, to prevent conservative Muslims from gaining power, America needs to intervene so that the situation will lead to a favorable direction for U.S. interests.

In the meantime, the U.S. has a decisive influence over Egypt’s military. While opposing the civilian government, there is no country in the world with demonstrators who are willing to go against the military. In the same way, if a military remains neutral while maintaining stability, it is easier for them to gain the public’s support in transitional politics. The U.S. understands this; they want to use this and implement their influence. The U.S. and Egypt’s militaries’ association has been going on for 30-plus years. Egypt gets U.S. military aid, second only to Israel. The U.S. has sway over Egypt’s high-level contacts and has already successfully created this situation: a guarantee that Egypt’s military can maintain stability without the use of force. After demonstrations forced Mubarak to step down, Egypt’s armed forces implemented military control and executed political transition.

In this way, the U.S. did not lose; instead they created the post-Mubarak drive. America wants to get a post-Mubarak era where Egypt continues to be friendly toward the U.S.; this is also the desired outcome of the chaotic situation in North Africa and the Middle East, with America intervening and creating. The future cannot preclude the next Egyptian leader being less enthusiastic about U.S. and Israel, but people have no excuse to expect that the new government will oppose the U.S. and Israel.

Moreover, if the chaos in the Middle East spreads to America’s enemy, it is exactly what America wants. Recently in Tehran and Tripoli demonstrations took place, which became a nuisance for Iran and Libya, but caused the U.S. and the West to be happy. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already made a statement to each country’s “government network,” openly supporting other countries’ people to challenge their government through the flow of information. From such a disturbance, the U.S. gains more than it loses.

Currently, the changing situation in Egypt is still unsettled; the U.S. is not able to arrange stability throughout the region. Thus the U.S. has once again resorted to different policies for different countries; each country will be dealt with differently. For countries like Bahrain, Jordan and Yemen, the U.S. wants to push for innovation rather than revolution and wants reformation rather than toppling the government. America wants to protect military assets deployed in the region and not have counter-terrorism cooperation change because of turmoil. The U.S. is also concerned that there will be fluctuations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait which will impact the international energy market. Therefore, America turns a blind eye to the Bahraini government using military force on peaceful protests. This time America’s tangible strategic interests will far exceed their values.

In dealing with the turmoil in the Middle East the U.S. can be passive and wait for change, they can be active and intervene or they can support the authorities; they have various means, but different standards. The Obama government uses “call for reform, support pro-democracy movement, each country is different and intervene in shaping”* methods to the greatest degrees while avoiding disadvantages. America has many uncertainties about the turmoil in the Middle East; however, the U.S. is the country that is most able to help shape the Middle East. From this point, Washington, D.C. is already at the highest level trying to alleviate the situation; their opportunities may exceed the challenges.

*Editor’s Note: This quotation, accurately translated, cannot be verified.