Tens of thousands of riled-up demonstrators ripped and burned pictures of Mubarak and called for him to resign. The police and the army positioned themselves as barriers between the mass of rioters and protected governmental institutions with their bodies — although being forced, from time to time, to shoot toward their brothers. Thousands of miles away, in the Oval Office of the White House, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton linger at the side of President Obama. Tension is at its peak. In recent days, advisor Donilon called upon President Obama to openly support President Mubarak.
“The Egyptian president is the pillar of United States foreign policy in the Muslim world,” he said, “Turning a cold shoulder to a loyal friend of the U.S. would be seen as a dangerous omen by all our world allies.” That turned Clinton on: “Mr. President, I can’t believe you’re going to betray everything we hold dear. How are you going to stand before the American people and explain that you are supporting the suppression of a developing democracy in Egypt?” “Okay”, Donilon responded, “I’ve got a solution for the quandary we’ve encountered. I received an authorized appeal from high-ranking army proxies in Egypt, and they want to prevent the Islamist takeover of Egypt by means of a preventive military coup. They are asking for our blessing. It looks, to me, like an excellent exit strategy for the situation we’re in.”
“Are you out of your mind?” Clinton vehemently protested, “The U.S. would endorse a military upheaval? Not for all the world! Mister President, I beg you: Don’t carve your name in history as someone who crowns military tyrants to rule freedom-loving people.” “I’ve made my decision, stated President Obama. “Tomorrow morning, I will come up with a statement calling for President Mubarak to respect the people’s will and to avoid thwarting democratic processes that represent the free and legitimate will of the Egyptian people.” Only hours after the release of President Obama’s statement, President Mubarak got the message and left Egypt in his private jet, on his way to a long-term exile.
This meeting regarding Egypt did not take place this week. It reflects U.S. actions in a similar crisis, more than 30 years ago, during the Khomeini Revolution in Iran in 1979. History is actually repeating itself, with a slightly altered scenario, and replacing the characters’ names (President Jimmy Carter, National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinshi, and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance). Evidently, the Obama administration hasn’t learned a thing from Carter’s failure.
A Ballad for Naivité
It is difficult to underestimate the hidden dangers in the ongoing process that began in Tunisia, slid into Egypt, and is permeating other countries. At this point, it is premature to determine what the day has in store: Who will replace President Mubarak and when? How much stronger will fundamentalist-Islamic elements grow, in the wake of these developments? And which Arab country is next in line? However, at the present moment, one can see that the machines of insurgency are, in fact, beginning to move in pragmatic Arab and Muslim countries (such as Tunisia and Egypt), rather than in countries of the radical axis (like Iran and Syria).
The question to be asked is: Why? Are the economical circumstances of Iranian and Syrian people better? Is the governance of those countries more democratic? The answer is, naturally, negative. On the surface, the reason is that the regimes of Mubarak and Ben Ali are more democratic than are those of the radical axis. The media and Internet channels in these countries (Tunisia and Egypt) are more liberal; thus, their rulers abstain from unleashing an indiscriminate bloodbath on their own people.
The peoples’ revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt are authentic expressions of unspoken feelings and the result of hard economic conditions, frustration, and hopelessness among the citizens of those countries, as well as alienation of the rulers from their people. Nevertheless, in these countries, Islamist organizations are sitting on the fence, waiting for the Americans to take the chestnuts from the fire for them. After the overthrow of the existing governments, free elections would be held, and Islamist forces would grab an increasing portion of the countries’ political arenas.
And what about the Obama administration? It is playing its part in the script, according to the words: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. In Egypt, as in Iran 30 years ago, Americans are certain that by turning their backs on allies, they promote values of democracy. From this vantage point, it seems that, in the eyes of the American administration, the world is divided in two: democratic against non-democratic. The Obama administration is no different from the Bush administration. Both administrations represent the naivité of the American people, who see in democracy — primarily, in democratic elections — a magic solution for all the evils of the world, especially for the peril of Islamic radicalization.
Obama’s Gamble
This American obsession with democracy was expressed in a conversation I had with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, at Stanford University. Today, Rice is diligently working on writing a book that represents the pursuit of democracy as a central keystone of American foreign policy during her time in office. According to her, she would not be afraid of a situation in which Islamist cells would gain control democratically over the governments in their countries, because, “The democratic process is strong enough,” and it would enable the people to remove them in the next round of elections. Moreover, regarding my claim that hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world would prefer to live in a state of Islamic tradition, ruled by Sharia law, instead of a democratic state, Rice responded: “Notwithstanding, a state ruled by Sharia law, ironically, is not necessarily undemocratic.” Rice is ignoring, of course, the inherent contradiction between democracy, which sees the people as the source of authority, and a state with Islamic law, which sees religion and God as the source of authority.
In keeping with the American approach, Ayatollah Khomeini, who was elected in democratic elections, is more legitimate than President Mubarak, who is preventing Islamist extremists from usurping the power in Egypt. Americans do not trouble themselves with trifles, such as the fact that Mubarak’s popularity among his people has fallen, because, among other reasons, he is identified as a U.S. ally. Furthermore, global jihad elements, headed by Bin Laden, have enjoyed a rising sympathy in Muslim countries and communities since the 2001 terrorist attack.
This sympathy creates a growing estrangement between them and pro-American governments in their countries. The U.S. considers such estrangement as evidence that a regime lacks legitimacy and urges the leadership to conduct political reforms — which will serve to facilitate the translation of Islamist popularity into political assets. Americans refuse to acknowledge that democratic elections are not, axiomatically, a feature of progress and liberalism. Democracy is not examined, based only on its mechanisms and institutions, but mainly based on its values, acquired over time. At an earlier point in time, President Obama gambled on the victory of the opposition in Egypt; in this wager, he contributed to its success. The days will tell whether it has been a Pyrrhic victory for democracy in Egypt and throughout the Arab world.