The Obama administration's reaction to the massive demonstrations and government crackdown in Egypt has been inconsistent, awkwardly changing from day to day. Instead of supporting the protesters and their pleas for democracy and reform, the administration staked out a position last week supporting the existing hard-line regime. Five days later, the administration completely reversed itself. This kind of leadership makes the U.S. appear weak and vacillating, and is all too characteristic of liberal Democrats who lack strong principles when it comes to freedom and democracy.
The protests were precipitated by the dictatorial actions of Egypt's president Hosni Mubarak. In the weeks leading up to last November's elections, Mubarak's National Democratic Party restricted the press and jailed dozens of opposition members. Mubarak's reelection was widely regarded as rigged. The Obama administration barely said a word. Pro-reform activists planned a protest to begin on January 25, 2011, "Freedom Revolution Day," organizing tens of thousands of Egyptians to rally in the streets until the 82-year old Mubarak agreed to resign his 30-year rule and give in to their demands for freedom, rights and justice.
Mubarak responded to the protesters by shutting down internet access and limiting cell phone access. He ordered the military onto the streets with tanks, and implemented a curfew, but it has been ignored. The protesters have stood firm, setting fire to police stations and offices of the National Democratic Party. Over 100 people have been killed and thousands injured.
Two days after the clash started, Vice President Joe Biden sided with Mubarak's crushing of human rights, declaring that Mubarak is not a dictator and should not step down. Outraged, conservatives and human rights activists demanded that the administration cut aid to Egypt until Mubarak stopped the crackdown. Backing down, the Obama administration said it would "review" current assistance. Then the administration distanced itself even further from Mubarak, calling for the regime to unblock internet access. Hillary Clinton asked Mubarak to embrace political reform and democracy. Most recently, Obama called on other world leaders to discuss supporting an "orderly transition" to a new regime.
Read the rest of the article on Townhall
Ms. Alexander, like all too many Americans, assumes that just because masses of people are protesting against a government, that the good guys are rising up against a dictator. Mubarak is a miserable piece of work, to be sure, but mass movements in the Arab world are out to turn their countries into pure Islamic regimes. We–and certainly Israel–will find few friends in any government brought into existence by a seismic event on the Arab street. Neither Mubarak nor the street really deserves much support from the US. Americans should hold off on their usual obsession of finding good guys to root for and villains to hiss. When the masses revolt in that part of the world, they want to bring the repression of sharia to their country.
The Muslim Brotherhood has been active in Egypt for quite some time. That Mubarak has routinely suppressed any opposition political party (with the exception of the Muslim Brotherhood) has placed Egypt in a tenuous position.
The Muslim Brotherhood is already measuring the windows in the Presidential Palace for drapes. A spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammad Ghannem has already told Al-Alam the Iranian News Agency that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel.
Mubarak’s ouster will leave a power vacuum that the Brotherhood is well-prepared to step into. The Obama administration must take control of the narrative if they wish to have a chance of keeping Egypt’s government secular.
The State department must issue a statement backing the demonstrations. They must work behind the scene to extract Mubarak. They must call for an interim government and ask for free and fair elections in one year. These last two points are key. The interim government should provide temporary stability to the country. The last thing we need is a closing of the Suez Canal or the oil pipeline that runs along its bank. The time frame for elections is required in order to allow unorganized democratic political parties in Egypt to gather the organization and support they will need in order to give the Muslim Brotherhood a challenge in the elections. If elections are held any sooner, these political parties will not be ready to take on the Brotherhood at the polls and Egypt will fall as Iran did in 1979.
One would think that ‘community organizing’ in order to offer organized resistance against an established ideology would be right up the alley of our Commander-in-Chief. This looks like a tailor-made situation for Barry. Let’s see if he’s smart enough to recognize the parallels and take action.
The one thing Obama will not do is to deal with the crisis in Egypt effectively. He’ll dither and posture (tough to do both together, but he manages it)and, if there is a way for the US to screw things up even worse, he’ll find it. Just imagine his fluttering if there develops any threat to the Suez Canal or the oil pipeline.
On Egypt itself: I’m aware that there are ‘moderates,’ or ‘democratic groups,’ and the like in Egypt–usually mislabeled ‘liberals’ by American journalists. But the tidal surge in Middle Eastern politics belongs to the Islamists. The Muslim Brotherhood is only one such force in Egypt–others exist and are active as well. Militant Islamism rules the Arab street.
I guess hope must spring eternal. I’m hoping Obama and the Foggy Bottom crowd stumble onto the correct recipe here. A domino effect of toppling regimes in the Middle East would just about put the kibosh to any further influence the US may have in that region.
It may all be for the best; especially if there’s a way to dump this whole issue at the feet of the Chinese. They want to sit at the ‘adult’ table let’em solve this Islamic fundamentalist problem. The militants cannot be any happier with China as they would reject being part of the new Caliphate as well.
The Chinese have one big advantage over the US in any dealings with the Muslim world; they do not support Israel. However, the Chinese have not yet begun to step up to the responsibility they will have if they want to be a true superpower. Thus far, the US (even when we screw up) has preempted that role. Under Obama I suspect we’ll go a long way toward relinquishing that function. And no, I’m not convinced that’s a good thing.
Exactly my point. The Chinese have dramatically increased their defense budget. They’ve also seemingly enjoyed the heck out of annoying the US with their currency manipulation schemes and the kabuki dance they’ve participated in regarding North Korea. If the Chinese believe themselves to be ready for prime time, they’ll find out rather quickly that once they take a preeminent role in world affairs that a multitude of NGO’s will begin demanding both foreign and domestic policy changes within that nation. The Chinese need to be mindful of what it is they wish for because they just might get it.
Mr. Wavering,
Agreed. One condition that I think is necessary for China to ‘step up’ is for living connections with Mao and the Communist Revolution (at the elite level) to die off. The inertia imposed by the revolutionary generation in China puts limits on the ability of the current government to formulate rational policy alternatives. Note that with the Soviet Union, change began to happen once several sets of leaders came to power in just a few years who had not spent much of their adult lifetimes living under Stalin. Totalitarian states seem to be quite vulnerable to the weight of their own dead past. A former colleague of mine now lives and works in Beijing, advising Chinese business leaders on how to deal more effectively with global economic issues and how to use information technology in making business decisions. She claims that a whole generation of Chinese businessmen now have very little real interest in the Communist vision and simply want to be able to succeed in the global economy. A friend of mine is in China about once every 6-8 weeks for his American company. This guy negotiates purchases of American technology by Chinese corporations and says that it’s business as usual in dealing with the Chinese. Now, if this innovative mentality takes hold in the government, who knows what we’ll eventually see?
I can appreciate the idea that ‘revolutions’ become more difficult to maintain with passing generations. China has embarked on a policy that attempts to substitute a degree of economic freedom in hopes that it will placate the population. Political repression is a difficult balance to hold: It becomes more difficult as;
• If the current population becomes sufficiently ‘removed’ from the administration in power
• If the disparity between the wealthy and the destitute becomes magnified
• Once a degree of economic freedom is achieved, political freedom must expand as well
It is not required that you meet all these criteria; any one is sufficient to cause a ‘tipping’ point. I believe that two of the three are present in Egypt. Those ‘connected’ to the regime have few limits on their economic opportunity. Everyone else suffers to one degree or another via poverty; real ‘live-on-two-dollars-a-day’ poverty not the ersatz poverty progressives are always wringing their collective hands over in the US, added to a significant young population that has no memory of the several conflicts Egypt had 30 years ago or more with Israel.
In China; the regime has, so far, neatly balanced the economic/political scales. Iron fisted political will blended with an almost dangerous level of ‘laissez faire’ capitalism. I believe the rulers there try to keep the idea of expanded rights and political freedom from becoming part of the discourse by distracting their people with more and more opportunity to better themselves economically.
The challenge here is that while China may be able to export its economic model, they cant’ really export their political model.
The problem with the US is that our economic/political system cannot really be exported to anywhere other than a highly industrialized nation. The American economic/political gestalt is a mix few other nations are ready to exploit. We keep forgetting here that it took us the better part of 170 years after our founding to begin to build what I would call the Modern American Republic. This is the reason for the stumbling of Iraq toward democracy and why it looks nothing like ours.
Egypt will go through the same things. When you attempt to ‘compress’ the learning curve from generations to months the ‘sausage making’ of political compromise can be especially messy.
I believe that China’s policy of favoring economic freedom over political freedom will catch up to them one day. Just a handful of truly rich industrialists with no connection to the present government could use their disposable income to begin the process of political change.
China is not balanced between the two. All nations have one or the other, politics or economics, ascendant over the other. However I believe that ‘convergent’ engineering eventually works with nations as well as with planes and automobiles.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Warren Jarog, IC Politics. IC Politics said: Obama Administration Posturing All Over the Place on Egyptian Standoff: The Obama administration's reaction to t… http://bit.ly/fv163Y [...]