The Moment of Fulfillment

Obama’s Cairo speech, delivered in June 2009, left no room for ambiguity: freedom of speech, the right to demonstrate, free elections and freedom from both corruption and repression were all global basic rights. The rebellion in the Arab world proves him right.

Is the United States about to throw away a golden opportunity? People in the Muslim world are taking to the streets attempting to overthrow longtime dictators. The pictures revive memories of the peaceful revolutions of Central Europe in 1989. But this time, little euphoria is apparent. President Obama supports the demonstrators’ demands for increased freedom and civil rights, but hasn’t joined them in demanding that yesterday’s dictators step down immediately. Does freedom deserve only lip service while more tangible interests prevail? Oil prices, Israeli security in the face of a hostile Cairo regime and further cooperation with dictators in the region in order to ward off potential terrorists — will these issues take precedence?

Of course the developments can be described completely differently.

Right from the beginning, Obama announced a new direction in dealing with the Islamic world; he expressed an understanding of criticisms of past U.S. policy and promised respect for Muslim self-determination. His Cairo speech left no room for ambiguity: freedom of speech, the right to demonstrate, free elections and freedom from both corruption and repression were all global basic human rights. At the time, many thought him a naïve idealist. Now, developments in the Muslim world prove him right.

It’s a moment of fulfillment for Obama as well, and he is smart enough to avoid overt interference. That was a frequent U.S. mistake in the past. America often chose the wrong side when the situation was still fluid and sometimes events got out of control. In the end, the superpower often found itself marginalized again and again, as the terrible example of Iran has shown. Or they were faced with having to support military coups or other autocrats as being the lesser of two evils.

Where this development will lead is still completely open. American influence is limited, and Obama was surprised by the dynamics of the situation. The United States hadn’t followed them as they had during the European situation in 1989. It has no close contact with the broad palette of opposition forces in the region that might offer alternatives. How could it be otherwise? In contrast to Poland or Hungary, Egypt has no experience with democracy and civil society upon which to draw. There is no broad political party system to represent the interests of rich and poor, workers and managers, businesses and the huge agricultural class. There is no strong middle class that usually forms the backbone of a democracy. Yet Egypt is better off than Iran or Pakistan with their madrasas. Egypt is mainly secular and no radical Islamic movement threatens there. The revolution wasn’t inspired by anti-Western philosophy. Anti-American or anti-Israeli signs are nowhere to be seen.

Egypt hangs in the balance. If we wish for anything, then it should be for peaceful demonstrations to keep the pressure for change honest and for the military and the government to prepare the ground for truly free and fair elections in September; for the social forces to use the intervening seven months to get organized and put their platforms before the Egyptian people; for the United States to thoughtfully consider what assistance would be useful and what would not. Then it will be of secondary importance whether Mubarak watches developments from his Cairo palace or from exile.