These are not easy days for any blogger who wants to say something about Egypt. Events move so rapidly there and throughout the region that anything one says in the morning may be easily outdated before the day is out. But there is one area that isn't endangered by rapidly changing events. The point of reference for this is a recent statement by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the Davos conference in Switzerland.
Addressing the gathering last week, Medvedev said that Russia is willing to take friendly advice, "But what we don't need is preaching. . . ." What he could have added was "from the United States." The current chaos in Egypt and the Arab world which started with the overthrow a few weeks ago of the government in Tunisia sharply focuses the U.S. propensity to preach, mostly with futility, for human rights and political and economic reform while at the same time being in bed with or trying to seduce those to whom we preach.
The U.S. through both Democratic and Republican administrations has been preaching the reform gospel for decades to bedfellows in the Arab world, most notably Egypt and Saudi Arabia. At the same time we have been the primary source of their support. To Egypt we have been giving generous economic and military aid in return for that country's playing a key role in various U.S. foreign policy objectives in the area. (The Egyptian military in deciding where it stands in the current chaos is surely looking for a way to please the populace while retaining our military aid in the future.) In the case of Saudi Arabia, we have served as a guarantor of its security going back to Franklin Roosevelt for its assurances of a continuous oil supply from its vast reserves.
So when things start to fall apart in the region as certainly seems to be the case now, the perception of the United States is that of a backer of authoritarian and corrupt governments, not as a purveyor of reform. As stated, this has been the case for decades, but what is particularly annoying are the efforts of some apologists for former President George W. Bush to make the case that Bush was right and Obama has been wrong in judging the popular demand for freedom in the Arab world.
The basis for the "Bush was right" view is one of the former President's arguments for invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein in 2003. At the time Bush said that in overthrowing Saddam, a U.S. goal was to implant the spirit and demands for democracy in a country with no historical experience with democracy. Further, that spirit would spread to other Arab countries in the region where the demand for democracy has been repressed historically by some form or other of authoritarian rule. But that argument was just neoconservative window dressing for the primary goal of the invasion which was to root out imaginary weapons of mass destruction possessed by Saddam, weapons that supposedly threatened the region and the United States itself. Or, as some argue, to gain control of Iraq's huge oil reserves.
But what, in fact, has resulted? First, in Iraq itself elections have been held but the the so-called democratically elected government appears to be headed in an anti-U.S. direction, heavily influenced by arch enemy and religiously authoritarian, non-Arab Iran. More importantly, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have already severely damaged the U.S. image in the Muslim world where our two wars are perceived as military occupations by 21st century anti-Muslim, Christian crusaders. U.S. efforts to change these outcomes and perceptions in the Iraq and the larger Muslim world are being further diminished both by our past role in supporting authoritarian rule and our present catchup responses to events in Egypt and other countries where unrest and demonstrations have broken out. Granted, it has not been easy for President Obama to craft a way of walking a tightrope on how to deal with the sudden popular uprisings, but that doesn't diminish the reality of perceptions on the streets of Cairo and the larger Muslim world about U.S. policy, which at least to now has been been largely free of an anti-U.S. character.
It would be difficult to overestimate how damaging these events have already been to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. As stated over and over in the media and in my previous post, the ouster of Mubarak, now or a little later, removes the key U.S. ally in our pursuit of various goals in the region. And with the considerable speculation that the major beneficiaries of change will be Islamic fundamentalists such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the future outlook for U.S. in the region appears even grimmer.
So to return to the opening theme about U.S. preaching to the world, we should either stop the preaching or give policy substance to what we preach. As we are finding out in the Arab world and to modify an old song title-- Preaching Don't Make It So.
It is not hard to see why there is a lot of anti-US sentiment in the region when we preach one thing but our actions say something else. We have supported Mubarek for so long and he is definitely not the poster child for democracy. I get tired of all the criticism that other countries heap on the U though. The US is not the only country that acts in ways that is good for its own interests. That can be said of any country. At this point it is hard to imagine that things are going to come out well in terms of US foreign policy in Egypt. Well, the US goal to spread democracy in the region is working but is looking like it is going to backfire if the Muslim Brotherhood does come out on top in Egypt.
ReplyDeleteShiela
ReplyDeleteYou are right about self-interests; it's what every country pursues. A good example right now is the U.S. and Israel. In our self-interest we are scrambling to salvage policies in the region and this seems to mean trying to keep up with the anti-Mubarak street demonstrations. On the other hand, Israel, where we also have a big stake, is serving its self-interests and is very unhappy with us for dumping Mubarak.
It is bitter irony that our preaching to spread democracy is backfiring as the anti-government protesters seek reform and more voice in government, but that greater role of the populace is likely to mean anti- or significantly less pro-U.S. policies.
In agreement with the comment above, it is hard to imagine that things are going to come out well for US foreign policy. The Egyptian populace isn't going to be too keen on US policies in the end when they focus on the fact that the US has been supporting Mubarak for so long. Hindsight is always 20/20 and it is hard to determine foreign policy as global situations are so fluid and dynamic, but looking back maybe we shouldn't have poked the bear by trying to spread democracy. Right now it seems in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now potentially Egypt, that we are ending up with very anti-US regimes and a more destablizied region.
ReplyDeleteDesertGirl
ReplyDeleteWould agree with you on the hindsight. Don't find anything wrong with our having poked the bear, but we needed to follow that up with hitting the bear over the head with a 2 x 4 to show him we mean it. Instead the poke was just a pinprick, or less, followed by a massage to smooth any ruffled fur.
There are a few possible differences in the Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt situations. The future concern for us in Egypt is that it will come to be governed by Islamic fundamentalists, or they will share significantly in the governance and take an anti-U.S. stance and end the peace treaty with Israel. Right now some elements of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt appear to have a somewhat moderate stance on governing a country on Islamic law and an ambiguous view of continuing or not the peace treaty with Israel. In Iraq the al-Maliki government is secular but the danger in the future is the role of al-Sadr, the Shia religious leader who has carved himself a place in the government and is pro-Iranian which is ruled by Islamic law. In Afghanistan, the return of Islamic law depends on whether or not the Taliban have a return to power. The Karzai regime is a secular tribal-based government whose biggest problem is corruption and his continuous "in your face" attitude with the U.S. despite the fact that we are his chief means of support.
The Egyptian youth movement has stated that they want democracy and don't want to have their movement hijacked by groups with there own agenda. An interview with some of the members of the youth movement said they are in favor of the Egyptian Vice President who they feel is a credible figure and could lead them forward. They said that Egypt wants to be independent and they don't want anyone like the US imposing themselves although they would like our administration to support the efforts of the Egyptian youth. It was an interesting interview with three young protestors who are members of the youth movement.
ReplyDeleteJeff
ReplyDeleteInteresting reaction from these youth. Obama should have some connection with Egyptian youth, having them particularly in mind with his speech in Cairo in 2009 which was well received then. The problem now is related to the term "hijacked". With the situation now being so chaotic, there are actors who would indeed like to hijack the protests for their own benefits. The most often spoken about group is the Muslim Brotherhood, the mere mention of which sets of alarms in the U.S. and other places. Rush Limbaugh has already said that Obama has put his support behind the Brotherhood against Mubarak. Then there is ElBaradei the newly returned Egyptian who wants to be the voice of moderation and lead a coalition to restore order to Egypt. But the big player whose role is still not clear is the army and where its support lies. While the U.S. is not a big fan of military coups, I suspect that in the short run we wouldn't mind the army stepping out of the shadow and taking the lead in establishing some kind of transitional authority until there can be early elections. The Egyptian army and air force have been the beneficiaries of a great deal of U.S. aid over the past thirty years and would not like to lose that aid so if the military does take the lead, we probably would not be unhappy although we could not applaud openly. So hijacking can go in several directions and no matter who comes out on top there will be charges of hijacking from the losers.