It has been ten days since I last posted on the turmoil in Egypt. I admitted then that I did not know what to think with respect to the probable outcome of all of this. Will this uprising end as did the most recent Iranian protests (or the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests for that matter), with no positive change in the country, or will it end more significantly? If it ends in significant change, will be it a positive or negative one? I suggested that "time will tell". It still will.
There have been some developments, perhaps only superficial, but changes nonetheless. The violence seems to have subsided, at least for now. The protesters and Egyptian army are both in a holding pattern. The media has mainly left, and the wall to wall coverage has ended. There is a new face for the government, that of Vice President Omar Suleiman. From the reports I have seen, he is definitely not the person who is going to bring democratic change to Egypt.
What is interesting are the perceptions of how the Obama administration has handled this crisis. The reviews are mainly negative - both from the left and the right. The pro-protester supporters outside of the country see the defence of the protest movement as weak, cautious, and unhelpful. The pro-Mubarak supporters see the defence of the regime, as weak, cautious and unhelpful. So they both agree. There are not many out there who think the Obama administration has handled this crisis well, with confidence and determination. The Hillary Clinton "3:00 a.m." phone call ad comes to mind.
Many think that the administration in this crisis, as in others, seems to be constantly playing catch-up. Like a golfer - throwing grass clippings in the air, testing the wind, before choosing the appropriate club. (What is really annoying to me is seeing the golfer throw the grass in the air AFTER the shot has been played.) The administration has gone from saying little, to supporting a orderly transition, to supporting a transition that should have occurred yesterday. Cutting off aid has even been suggested.
Its not up to outsiders to dictate the outcome in Egypt. If I could have my druthers, I would choose a democratic, stable, pro-West, secular government in Egypt. But I am not an Egyptian resident and it's not my call. I will continue to watch and wait, and hope for the best ( while fearing the worst).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteYou cannot coherently say on one hand that the outcome rests with Egyptians themselves, but on the other hand echo the pundits who equate handling this crisis "well" with handling it with "confidence and determination". If it is up to the Egyptian people, what is there for Obama to "determine" so "confidently"?
I think Obama's evolving response to the crisis is unsurprising, given the evolving quality of the crisis itself. In fact, it is probably sensible, when you consider the conflicting foreign policy imperatives. On one hand, the US does not want to see itself as being opposed to democratic aspirations, least of all in the Middle East. On the other hand, Egypt's particular brand of authoritarian rule has served the US and its chief regional ally, Israel, reasonably well. It may well be, after all, that the democratically expressed will of Egyptians might not be so friendly to the US or Israel.
It's a complex situation, requiring a nuanced and probably evolving response.
In short, I disagree with your statement that "what is interesting are the perceptions of how the Obama administration has handled this crisis." If they are as you have related them, they're really not all that interesting.
Russ
It's disappointing (but typical) that the American media are concentrating on the process of U.S. response, rather than examining any underlying policies. For instance the wisdom of the American relationship with what may be the most torturous country on Earth. As Glenn Greenwald wrote the other day:
ReplyDelete"the New York Times's lengthy article today offers a long and detailed profile of the new Egyptian 'Vice President.' Unfortunately, the paper of record wasn't able to find the space to inform its readers about Suleiman's decades-long history as America's personal abducter, detainer and torturer of the Egyptian people, nor his status as Israel's most favored heir to the Mubarak tyranny (though the article did vaguely and euphemistically acknowledge that "the United States has certainly had long ties with Mr. Suleiman" and that "for years he has been an important contact for the Central Intelligence Agency")."
Since President Clinton, the U.S. has used Egypt as a torture subcontractor, sending hundreds (thousands?) of men there to be brutally beaten, maimed, cut, electrocuted, drowned, shot, buried alive, amputated, or disappeared, sometimes by Suleiman himself (and often with CIA agents in the room, directing). He once offered to cut off a detainee's arm personally as a favour to the CIA.
Isn't there a point at which this cruelty outweighs 'stability'? Buy some strong binoculars, turn around & you might see it way back in the distance. How can anyone talk about "Egypt's brand of authoritarian rule serv[ing] the U.S. [& Israel] reasonably well" without wanting to punch himself in the face? The secret police apparatus in Egypt sounds a lot like the Soviet, East German, or even Nazi organs of repression. Would any reasonable person get away with saying, "Germany's brand of authoritarian rule served the U.S. reasonably well?" No! Because that's not the damn point! (Sorry Russ).
Scott
P.S. For more on Suleiman, see Jane Mayer's comment in the New Yorker blog. He was a key figure in her book, "The Dark Side."
Scott,
ReplyDeleteReductio ad Hitlerum as a debating technique is evocative but rarely persuasive. When Mubarek starts shipping millions of people to concentration camps, I will reconsider my view that the Americans are right to tread carefully.
On a (very) related note, some of us once thought that overthrowing the Shah seemed like a good idea.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteWith respect, you need to decide which question you're trying to answer.
Is it the question you posed in your first comment (whether "cruelty outweighs stability"?) or it the question implicit in your second comment ("why does the US support insane dictators?")
I tend to think that, while both questions will become important - even essential - when the dust settles, they are (when assessing Obama's response to an unpredictable, emergent and volatile situation, which was the point I was addressing) largely irrelevant at this stage. At present, when assessing Obama's response to the crisis in Egypt, the more pertinent question seems to me to be "what are the risks that a cruel dictator's successor could be worse, whether for his neighbours or for his own people?" You might differ from Obama on the outcome of that risk assessment (presumably because you place a lower price on "stability" than he does - which is a fair point of disagreement), but that doesn't make it less pertinent, or any of your questions any more pertinent (i.e. not at all).
And I wasn't brushing off your critique because it was based on a cliche. I was brushing it off because the comparison had no sense of proportion, and as such was not well taken. You might as well compare the Indian Act to the Nuremberg laws. While there are obvious conceptual similarities, the appropriate policy responses would obviously be vastly different in each case. Reductionist thinking that skates over that point leads to disproportionate responses to foreign policy challenges. (Tell me, how did that invasion of Iraq work out again?)
Scott, you may disagree with all this. But - again, with respect - to suggest that anyone who points out an obvious reason Obama is taking a cautious approach should want to "punch himself in the face" betrays an exuberance that fails to account for the possible (indeed, hardly improbable) down-side risk. While I agree that stability comes with a price that sometimes won't be worth paying, so does instability. Your implicit denial of the legitimacy of that point is simply unreasonable.
Scott,
ReplyDeleteFrom the "what-are-the-risks-that-a-cruel-dictator's-successor-could-be-worse,-whether-for-his-neighbours-or-for-his-own-people?" department, see http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/24/egypt.revolution/index.html?hpt=C1
Guess the revolution may not have been so [ahem] "awesome" after all.
But, fear not - I'm sure that once they realize that an idealistic Canadian law student is comparing them to Nazis, they will immediately cease and desist.
Better luck next time.
RB