The US has baked itself into a corner. It should learn
to enjoy the fruits of its labour, says
Quiet tourist backwater
Tunisia under its only rulers
since independence -- Habib Bourghiba (1956-1987) and
then Zein Al-Abidine bin Ali (1987-2011) -- was a much
appreciated ally of the United States. However, as bin
Ali fled to
Saudi Arabia last month, US
leaders suddenly were hailing those who defied his
US-trained police with their US-made tear gas and
guns, including the 100 they killed.
Two weeks later, after almost identical developments
in Egypt,
the US found itself poised to repeat itself, praising
the now millions of protesters, including at least 300
who so far have died, though stopping short of pushing
Egypt's
President Hosni Mubarak
(1981-2011) to follow his colleague's steps into
exile, fearing the collapse of its
Middle East
order.
Now mainstream US pundits strategise about how best to
shape the new political playing field to continue to
meet US needs. In the New York TimesMark Landler
worries about "potentially dangerous directions" for
the US. He quotes United States
President Barack Obama's
new special envoy to Tunisia Jeffrey Feltman on the
need to "support pro-democracy forces", though Daniel
Shapiro cautions against "a cookie-cutter ideal of how
to approach it". And Aaron Miller tells Landler they
must find the right balance between "identifying the
US too closely with these changes" (read: continuing
to support the government) and at the same time "not
finding ways to nurture them enough" (read:
controlling the pro-democracy activists).
Martin
Indyk, adviser to Obama's
Middle East envoyGeorge
Mitchell and former ambassador to
Israel,
weighed in definitively on Egypt in a CNN interview 30
January when he called Mubarak "a dead man walking",
saying "We have to get on the right side of history."
In other words, if you can't beat ‘em, join ‘em.
Even without a "cookie-cutter" it is clear in
Cairo
that the Landlers and Indyks advising
Washington
on its policies towards Arab countries are following a
well-defined recipe not concerned with Arab democracy,
but Israel's best interests, even as the policy zigs
one way and zags another.
That bin Ali's staunch support for the US war against
Islam (excuse me, "terrorism") just might be an
important reason why Tunisians risked life and limb to
overthrow him hardly seems to enter the US radar
screen. Bin Ali's willingness to persecute his own
people while serving US Middle East interests also
goes a long way towards explaining his lack of qualms
about stealing their wealth and ignoring their basic
needs.
Ditto Egypt. Shapiro's insistence that no
cookie-cutter is adequate to the complexities of the
Middle East is belied by both the uniformity of US
Arab allies' domestic and foreign policies and the
quick succession of almost identical protests. The
last 30 years have witnessed a cookie-cutter scenario
of a US-supported secular government which persecuted
Islamists and opened the nation to the depredations of
neoliberalism and tourism through a US-educated and
armed elite which amassed vast fortunes. It is hardly
surprising that the dispossessed finally exploded in
fury.
There are differences -- Egypt has a large peasantry,
by definition conservative. But it also has memories
of socialism -- land reform and the relative equality
of the days of Gamal Abdel-Nasser. In addition, Egypt
has a long history of political plurality. Spurred on
by mass movements Kefaya (Enough), ElBaradei's
National Association for Change, and the April 6 Youth
Movement, the venerable Wafd (Delegation)
Party, the
Muslim Brotherhood and several
more recent secular parties such as Al-Ghad (Tomorrow)
and Tagammu (Alliance) will hit the political ground
running when the dust finally clears after Egypt's
popular uprising.
By all rights Egypt is the most important player in
the Middle East, but since
president Anwar Sadat signed the
Camp
David accord in 1979, Egypt has
been intimately tied to the US as the only Arab
country, along with Jordan, to sign a
peace treaty
and recognise Israel, and thus was sidelined. The
revolution of January 2011 has suddenly thrust Egypt
back into the Middle East's "great game", much as the
ascendancy of Nasser in 1952 in reaction to British
domination made it a key player in that era's great
game.
As it has done throughout the post-WWII period,
Washington is hedging its political bets. Until the
last moment in both Tunisia and Egypt, it strongly
supported the government despite an increasing pattern
of repression and corruption in both countries, while
also backing and financing the regimes' detractors,
primarily through the activities of
Freedom House
and the
National Endowment for Democracy
(NED), recognising that the end must come at some
point.
According to a Wikileaks 6 December 2007 cable posted
by Norway's Aftenposten, USAID budgeted $66.5
million dollars in 2008 and $75 million in 2009 to
Egyptian programmes promoting "democracy
and good governance". "President
Mubarak is deeply sceptical of
the US role in
democracy promotion," reads
another cable from the US embassy in Cairo dated 9
October 2007. "Nonetheless, (US government) programmes
are helping to establish democratic institutions and
strengthen individual voices for change in Egypt."
Virtually an adjunct of the CIA, the NED funnels funds
to all the region's countries. In 2009 it gave grants
to more than a dozen opposition groups, including Al-Jahedh
Forum for Free Thought, the American Center for
International Labor Solidarity,
the Arab Foundation for Supporting Civil Society, the
Arab Society for Human Rights, the Egyptian Union of
Liberal Youth, the Project on Middle East Democracy
and the Youth Forum. The complete list is at ned.org/where-we-work/middle-east-and-northern-africa/Egypt.
Under the auspices of Freedom House's New Generation
programme Egyptian visiting fellows from
civil society groups
came to the US for training in 2008, including
meetings with US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice
and White House National Security adviser
Stephen Hadley. In May 2009,
Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton met a delegation of
Egyptian dissidents, just prior to Obama's visit to
Egypt. Sixteen activists met with Clinton and
Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern
Affairs Jeffrey Feltman as part
of a two-month fellowship.
However, even as the governing National Democratic
Party's rule falters, the US has prevaricated,
scrambling to regain control of the political process,
clearly concerned that its chosen democratic protégés
were perhaps not that reliable (or in control), that
the pro-democracy movement could well end up in a new
government reversing Egypt's pro-Western policy.
It goes without saying that the world's sole
superpower does not want to let such an important
player as Egypt go its own way. But officials should
remember that the term "blowback" was coined by the
CIA itself, and its relevance only increases over
time. Yes, any new government in Egypt will be
anti-Israel. Yes, it will have a strong
Muslim Brotherhood
presence.
But, ironically, this new face for Egypt is one that
any US president should embrace, and not just
cynically like Indyk. It will force Israel to finally
negotiate a reasonable peace with Palestine, giving
backbone to other Arab governments, and -- most
important -- undercutting the Indyks. It will be the
US president's best ally in the long run.
An openly operating Muslim Brotherhood will contribute
in a host of ways to solving Egypt's horrendous
poverty and social degradation, giving Muslims a new
confidence and pride. Sectarian problems, also
ironically, will fade as Muslims take control of their
lives after decades of neocolonial humiliation.
Add Comments