So Who Is Our Guy Now?
Published in Capital
(Bulgaria) on 4 February 2011
by Svetlomira Gurova (link to original)
Instead of joy, the revolutionary wave in Egypt and the Arab world has triggered shock and horror in the West.
“Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.” That description of the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza has been attributed to American President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and is a perfect example of the pragmatic yet hypocritical policy of the U.S. toward convenient regimes established in different parts of the world. It is a policy still practiced today.
Of course, hypocrisy is not just reserved for Washington. There are other capitals in the Western world that would prefer to deal with a familiar evil rather than leap into the unknown, even when supreme values such as freedom, democracy and human rights are at stake.
That is why the events in Egypt have presented Western leaders with a dilemma, and triggered shock and horror instead of satisfaction or joy. In Israel, the fear is tangible. For days the Israeli state watched in studied silence as the fires raged on Egyptian streets. The reactions of the United States and the European Union were also slow. Their initial statements were tentative and lacked determination.
Of course, the hesitation is more or less understandable — Egypt is the most important and largest Arab state in terms of population. Whatever happens there has the potential of rearranging the geopolitical configuration in that volatile region. The order of the Arab world as we know it has sunk beneath the shifting desert sands, and no one knows what will emerge to replace it.
The vacuum and uncertainty left in the wake of the Egyptian uprising is frightening, but they also offer Washington and Brussels a chance to take a stand on the right side of history.
The devil we know
Egypt’s strategic significance is incomparable to that of tiny Tunisia, where the flames of Arab anger were sparked. What is happening in Egypt may redefine the path of Arab politics toward Iran, Israel and the peace process in Palestine.
That is why for 30 years everyone loved Mubarak. That is why the Western world has been supportive of his autocratic regime in the name of stability and predictability.
One of the ironies of the situation is that in June 2009 Barack Obama delivered one of his most moving speeches on foreign policy at the University of Cairo. He spoke inspiringly about the importance of democracy, freedom of speech and democratic elections for the future of Arabic countries. However, when the “new beginning” in the region arrived with the roar of the protests in Egypt, the U.S. looked unprepared.
Only after it had become clear that the Egyptian president would not be able to withstand the pressure, and after his supporters had engaged in violence in an attempt to stop the revolt, did the White House abandon its careful diplomacy and officially break with its most significant Arab ally.
It is not difficult to explain the initial lack of resolve. Being one of the major sponsors and patrons of Mubarak’s regime, Washington had to walk a fine line. On the one hand, abandoning a longstanding ally would send a dangerous signal to the rest of the Arab states loyal to the U.S., such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, defending a dictator against the will of his people would be a catastrophe for American prestige.
Furthermore, I doubt Obama will want to go down in history as the president who lost Egypt, following the example of Jimmy Carter who in 1979 watched Iran turn from a loyal friend into a relentless enemy.
Silently shuddering at the eruption in Cairo, Tel Aviv has the most to lose. While Israeli politicians were biting their tongues, the headlines in the Israeli press proclaimed loudly: “Totally alone,” “Without an ally,” “The New Middle East.”
A change of power in Egypt, one of the most important diplomatic partners Israel has, and the closest equivalent to a friend in the Middle East for Tel Aviv, will bring Israel nothing but worry. The peace treaty with Egypt in 1979 was a turning point in Israeli history, significantly diminishing the isolation of the Israeli state in the region.
Mubarak oversaw the peace negotiations with the Palestinians, helped suppress the actions of Hamas on the Egyptian border with the Gaza Strip, did his best to ward off Iran and supplied 40 percent of the natural gas Israel needs. Now all this may change.
The European Union looks even more disoriented in the midst of the Arab storm. After silently remaining on the sidelines while the revolution in Tunisia unfolded, Europe has now started to radiate faint, unconvincing signals with regard to the situation in Egypt.
“It’s a shame that the European Union is behaving that way when events of such a magnitude are developing in Egypt. This is the equivalent of 1989 for the Arab world and the leaders of the European Union are simply not there,” said Daniel Korski, a senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
The unknown need not be frightening
The revolutionary wave in the Arab world calls for a revolution in Western diplomacy. For years, Washington and Brussels have followed the same pattern of choosing between secular dictators and fierce, bearded Islamists. With the dramatic changes in the political hierarchy of the region, the convenient hypocrisy of the status quo is no longer an option.
“In the meantime the international community has to focus its attention not only on the risks involved, but also on the opportunities offered. Whoever comes to power in Egypt will use anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric. He may open up the Gaza Strip. He may even reinforce the possibility of another war in Gaza. But Egypt cannot turn directly against Israel,” said Özgür Ünlühisarcıklı, director of the German Marshall Fund of the United States’ office in Ankara.
Certainly, democracy can produce unpleasant side effects — in Palestine, people voted for the radical group Hamas, in Lebanon for Hezbollah. No one can predict with certainty whether dreadful Islamists are going to emerge from the fire of the Egyptian melting pot.
Ultimately however, the events in Egypt offer the West the opportunity to restore its prestige, tarnished by decades of applying double standards in the Arab world. The rebellion in Egypt brings risks with it to be sure, but it is the most inspiring and the most promising development in the region for a very long time. For good or ill, the United States and the European Union are not those who will decide its future.
“Somoza may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.” That description of the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza has been attributed to American President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and is a perfect example of the pragmatic yet hypocritical policy of the U.S. toward convenient regimes established in different parts of the world. It is a policy still practiced today.
Of course, hypocrisy is not just reserved for Washington. There are other capitals in the Western world that would prefer to deal with a familiar evil rather than leap into the unknown, even when supreme values such as freedom, democracy and human rights are at stake.
That is why the events in Egypt have presented Western leaders with a dilemma, and triggered shock and horror instead of satisfaction or joy. In Israel, the fear is tangible. For days the Israeli state watched in studied silence as the fires raged on Egyptian streets. The reactions of the United States and the European Union were also slow. Their initial statements were tentative and lacked determination.
Of course, the hesitation is more or less understandable — Egypt is the most important and largest Arab state in terms of population. Whatever happens there has the potential of rearranging the geopolitical configuration in that volatile region. The order of the Arab world as we know it has sunk beneath the shifting desert sands, and no one knows what will emerge to replace it.
The vacuum and uncertainty left in the wake of the Egyptian uprising is frightening, but they also offer Washington and Brussels a chance to take a stand on the right side of history.
The devil we know
Egypt’s strategic significance is incomparable to that of tiny Tunisia, where the flames of Arab anger were sparked. What is happening in Egypt may redefine the path of Arab politics toward Iran, Israel and the peace process in Palestine.
That is why for 30 years everyone loved Mubarak. That is why the Western world has been supportive of his autocratic regime in the name of stability and predictability.
One of the ironies of the situation is that in June 2009 Barack Obama delivered one of his most moving speeches on foreign policy at the University of Cairo. He spoke inspiringly about the importance of democracy, freedom of speech and democratic elections for the future of Arabic countries. However, when the “new beginning” in the region arrived with the roar of the protests in Egypt, the U.S. looked unprepared.
Only after it had become clear that the Egyptian president would not be able to withstand the pressure, and after his supporters had engaged in violence in an attempt to stop the revolt, did the White House abandon its careful diplomacy and officially break with its most significant Arab ally.
It is not difficult to explain the initial lack of resolve. Being one of the major sponsors and patrons of Mubarak’s regime, Washington had to walk a fine line. On the one hand, abandoning a longstanding ally would send a dangerous signal to the rest of the Arab states loyal to the U.S., such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, defending a dictator against the will of his people would be a catastrophe for American prestige.
Furthermore, I doubt Obama will want to go down in history as the president who lost Egypt, following the example of Jimmy Carter who in 1979 watched Iran turn from a loyal friend into a relentless enemy.
Silently shuddering at the eruption in Cairo, Tel Aviv has the most to lose. While Israeli politicians were biting their tongues, the headlines in the Israeli press proclaimed loudly: “Totally alone,” “Without an ally,” “The New Middle East.”
A change of power in Egypt, one of the most important diplomatic partners Israel has, and the closest equivalent to a friend in the Middle East for Tel Aviv, will bring Israel nothing but worry. The peace treaty with Egypt in 1979 was a turning point in Israeli history, significantly diminishing the isolation of the Israeli state in the region.
Mubarak oversaw the peace negotiations with the Palestinians, helped suppress the actions of Hamas on the Egyptian border with the Gaza Strip, did his best to ward off Iran and supplied 40 percent of the natural gas Israel needs. Now all this may change.
The European Union looks even more disoriented in the midst of the Arab storm. After silently remaining on the sidelines while the revolution in Tunisia unfolded, Europe has now started to radiate faint, unconvincing signals with regard to the situation in Egypt.
“It’s a shame that the European Union is behaving that way when events of such a magnitude are developing in Egypt. This is the equivalent of 1989 for the Arab world and the leaders of the European Union are simply not there,” said Daniel Korski, a senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
The unknown need not be frightening
The revolutionary wave in the Arab world calls for a revolution in Western diplomacy. For years, Washington and Brussels have followed the same pattern of choosing between secular dictators and fierce, bearded Islamists. With the dramatic changes in the political hierarchy of the region, the convenient hypocrisy of the status quo is no longer an option.
“In the meantime the international community has to focus its attention not only on the risks involved, but also on the opportunities offered. Whoever comes to power in Egypt will use anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric. He may open up the Gaza Strip. He may even reinforce the possibility of another war in Gaza. But Egypt cannot turn directly against Israel,” said Özgür Ünlühisarcıklı, director of the German Marshall Fund of the United States’ office in Ankara.
Certainly, democracy can produce unpleasant side effects — in Palestine, people voted for the radical group Hamas, in Lebanon for Hezbollah. No one can predict with certainty whether dreadful Islamists are going to emerge from the fire of the Egyptian melting pot.
Ultimately however, the events in Egypt offer the West the opportunity to restore its prestige, tarnished by decades of applying double standards in the Arab world. The rebellion in Egypt brings risks with it to be sure, but it is the most inspiring and the most promising development in the region for a very long time. For good or ill, the United States and the European Union are not those who will decide its future.
Much of West’s fears of so-called radical Islam are pure nonsense, if not ridiculous. Why don’t they look at the radical Israel? Israel is a contradiction in terms. Read this statement f David Ben-Gurion, founder of Israel: ““If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is theirs. There has been Anti – Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They not see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” Want some more from Ben Gurion? It is the height of faithlessness and ridiculing Judaism. Said Ben Gurion while abandoning the Hebrew God at the swearing in ceremony of Israel, “God did not do enough for Jews.” So God was disdainfully dropped and allegiance to Israel was replaced with an abstract symbol: “Rock of Israel.” So the Zionists have no place for the Jewish God in Israel. Israel proudly claims its faith in Judo-Christian doctrine but look at this headline in the Haaretz newspaper: When the Messiah comes; Israel will deport him – Haaretz Daily…
10 Jan 2011 …” Read the whole story. One fears that God’s wrath might wax hot on Israel and it might drag America too in its meltdown.
Please don’t worry about the bearded Islamists. One must remember that both Moses and Jesus Christ adorned beards. Islamists know nothing about the workings of modern statecraft and moreover such organizations as Muslim Brotherhood is also steeped in worst autocracy and secrecy. As for Iranian theocracy, it has tainted its credibility before man and God by blatant cheating and rigging in the election of Ahmadinejad and on top of it ruthlessness suppressed the dissent. Another similar anti-people act would bury it deep in the Iranian soil. What the Arab world needs is democracy played by the rules. In that nobody needs have any fears and misgivings.