US Takes Soft Yet ‘Calculated’ Approach With Egypt
In lieu of recent events in Cairo, the Bush Administration offered Egypt ‘friendly’ advice asking Mubarak to relieve some pressure off of the protesters. This is certainly not uncommon, in the past the United States has been putting immense pressure under the Egyptian government to pave the way for democratic reforms.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack has reinforced the typical rhetoric which the White House produces, “Egypt is a good friend, Egypt is a good ally…,” and has further stated that the US stands hand in hand with Egypt in a common pool of interests and objectives.
Again, nothing about this is novel. Ever since the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, the US has been a very close ally of Egypt and has offered $2.3 billion in economic and military aid annually. However, the US’ reaction to the incidents has been carefully calculated.
In retrospect, the US realized that it is NOT in the interest of the Egyptians to fully democratize at this point. These are the following reasons:
1) The allowance of free elections in Palestine has proved to the US that their pro-democracy efforts have backfired with the election of Hamas, a group the US government considers a harbor for terrorism. Thus, allowing free elections in the region as well as Egypt will ultimately lead to pan-Islamism (retaining fanaticism and the implementation of a ‘strict’ version of the Sharia Law – wholly undemocratic).
2) Allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to gain power in Egypt can be both in the interest or disadvantage to the Americans. One the one hand, it can be argued that given the nature of the MB, the group will act as a buffer against extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda. However, on the other hand, the potential election of the MB could regress Egyptian society in to a more dictatorial, backward and undemocratic position. This is a pure cost-benefit analysis and it remains esoteric as to whether the US is leaning to one side or the other.
3) The US realized that (learning from Iraqi model) they cannot simply leave a can of unopened worms. It is one thing using rhetoric such as that of McCormack and it is another thing to use force (such as in Iraq) to spread democracy. In the case of Egypt, the US prefers the former without doubt, it is better to maintain Egypt’s status quo and let Mubarak deal with any internal issues plaguing the country. The US feels it is doing its part by simply fueling $2.3 billion of aid per year however (as I will show in my forthcoming post) this aid has in fact retarded the economy instead of promoting its growth and potential.
Change in Egypt needs to be gradual and progressive, thus any abrupt US intervention will cause an absolute calamity in the country. Given the abundance of anti-American sentiment among many of Egypt’s proletariat, the prospect of allowing the US to ‘take care’ of things is absolutely out of the question. However, the current administration needs to act quickly before the Egyptian population starts to believe that their savior is the US which is completely false (as seen from the Iraq case).
Recent events have proven the delicacy of the situation. Many Egyptians are faced with the decision to follow the lesser of two evils (i.e. NDP or MB), some are clearly pro-NDP (since they benefit financially and politically) and others are pro-MB but others are just not sure what to think. On the one hand, the US does not like the undemocratic methods of NDP but at the same time, they don’t think the MB will do a better job. However, the MB might be a good buffer against al-Qaeda, a priority which trumps the political situation in Egypt – i.e. the fight against terrorism.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack has reinforced the typical rhetoric which the White House produces, “Egypt is a good friend, Egypt is a good ally…,” and has further stated that the US stands hand in hand with Egypt in a common pool of interests and objectives.
Again, nothing about this is novel. Ever since the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, the US has been a very close ally of Egypt and has offered $2.3 billion in economic and military aid annually. However, the US’ reaction to the incidents has been carefully calculated.
In retrospect, the US realized that it is NOT in the interest of the Egyptians to fully democratize at this point. These are the following reasons:
1) The allowance of free elections in Palestine has proved to the US that their pro-democracy efforts have backfired with the election of Hamas, a group the US government considers a harbor for terrorism. Thus, allowing free elections in the region as well as Egypt will ultimately lead to pan-Islamism (retaining fanaticism and the implementation of a ‘strict’ version of the Sharia Law – wholly undemocratic).
2) Allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to gain power in Egypt can be both in the interest or disadvantage to the Americans. One the one hand, it can be argued that given the nature of the MB, the group will act as a buffer against extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda. However, on the other hand, the potential election of the MB could regress Egyptian society in to a more dictatorial, backward and undemocratic position. This is a pure cost-benefit analysis and it remains esoteric as to whether the US is leaning to one side or the other.
3) The US realized that (learning from Iraqi model) they cannot simply leave a can of unopened worms. It is one thing using rhetoric such as that of McCormack and it is another thing to use force (such as in Iraq) to spread democracy. In the case of Egypt, the US prefers the former without doubt, it is better to maintain Egypt’s status quo and let Mubarak deal with any internal issues plaguing the country. The US feels it is doing its part by simply fueling $2.3 billion of aid per year however (as I will show in my forthcoming post) this aid has in fact retarded the economy instead of promoting its growth and potential.
Change in Egypt needs to be gradual and progressive, thus any abrupt US intervention will cause an absolute calamity in the country. Given the abundance of anti-American sentiment among many of Egypt’s proletariat, the prospect of allowing the US to ‘take care’ of things is absolutely out of the question. However, the current administration needs to act quickly before the Egyptian population starts to believe that their savior is the US which is completely false (as seen from the Iraq case).
Recent events have proven the delicacy of the situation. Many Egyptians are faced with the decision to follow the lesser of two evils (i.e. NDP or MB), some are clearly pro-NDP (since they benefit financially and politically) and others are pro-MB but others are just not sure what to think. On the one hand, the US does not like the undemocratic methods of NDP but at the same time, they don’t think the MB will do a better job. However, the MB might be a good buffer against al-Qaeda, a priority which trumps the political situation in Egypt – i.e. the fight against terrorism.
posted by The Egyptian Observer at 2:53 PM
4 Comments:
Good evening from Paris
Loved your blog. Just added it to mine, wich unfortunely is in portuguese and french.
I'm a political science major and am trying to become a journalist.
Thanks again for you blog!
Bonjour a Chicago!
Merci beaucoup pour tes compliments. J'ai deja visite ton blog, je peux parler francais et lire en francais aussi et en fait je vais prendre le cours de portugais la semaine prochaine! C'est une coincidence bizarre.
En fait, j'espere que tu passes un bon sejour a Paris, j'i habite la-bas l'ete de 2003 et bien sur j'adore Paris.
Bon sejour a mon blog!
EO
I agree with most of the points you made in this post but I would disagree on this one:
"However, on the other hand, the potential election of the MB could regress Egyptian society in to a more dictatorial, backward and undemocratic position."
There's simply no proof to support this theory. Islamists have not been in full power in any country in the ME except recently in Palestine. I would consider the latter to be an "exceptional" case because of the circumstances of occupation and calls for isolation of the government. Until now, Hamas has acted with more transparency than Fateh ever did in the decades before that.
This argument is continuously laid out by some Western and Arab analysts who argue that it would be better to support authoritarian regimes rather than allow democracy to take place and subsequently Islamists to come to power. These countries are not democracies today, and in my view, I can't imagine something worse than what we see in Egypt or Syria, for example. I simply don't buy the argument that Islamists will make the political situation in these countries worse, or more authoritarian. We all know what happened in Algeria; Islamists were not even given a chance.
Today, the MB is active in various countries in the ME, albeit not under the same circumstances and not always using the same approach. Nevertheless, they have not attempted to "take over" any government by force, or impose any type of social standards on the population.
This is the risk that democracies face. The government is chosen by the people, and the people don't always make the right choice. However, if the institutions of democracy have a strong foundation in principle and in action, any party that comes into power cannot simply dismantle them without facing widespread condemnation, and subsequently, removal from power.
I feel that this is simply an excuse that certain political actors use to keep democracy away from the ME because the current leadership serves their interests (and I don't mean this in a conspiracy theory kind of way; it's simply state interests at play).
Btw, I really enjoy your analysis on Egypt and the ME in general.
Poli-sci all the way ;)
@moi. Thank you for candid remarks and comments I really appreciate them.
You are correct, the MB's impact on Egyptian society remains largely esoteric.
There is certainly a case to be made for allowing authoritarian regimes (or semi-authoritarian regimes) to remain in power in the Middle East and to take care of business the way it has always been done.
However, the region has been witnessing incredible changes over the last decades and along with it changes in government style and system. So, countries should embrace change even if the repercussions are not clear at this point, the larger the risk, the larger the return.
I completely agree with you, it is in the interest of many heads of state to maintain an authoritarian power over their power - purely for their self interests. This can be seen (and has been seen) in Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria.
In essence, the MB's rise to power could go perfectly well or terribly wrong on both domestic and foreign platforms. It is only a matter of time when they start augmenting their political power even more and present the Egyptians a more pragmatic and implementable agenda.
Polysci definitely all the way! :)
Post a Comment
<< Home