The Battle for Egypt II - US policy in Dissaray

on 2011/2/10 16:00:00 (125 reads)

Paris, February 7, 2011 – There has been no end to the confusion marking the Barack Obama administration’s reaction to the Egypt crisis. It has (inevitably -- given the Washington worldview) identified it as one more development in what it has renamed America’s Great War Against Violent Extremism. The demonstrations have not been treated as Egypt’s crisis, or one of Arab political society, but as a challenge to American peace- enforcement in the Muslim Middle East. The administration has been addressing the Egyptians as if they were American puppets that perversely have taken on life. Most of the world has thought – as the Egyptians themselves do – that the affair fundamentally concerns the Egyptian people and nation, not the United States. For example, on Tuesday [February 8] U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates congratulated the Egyptian Army for its conduct during the crisis. “Well done!,” he effectively said to the Egyptian generals and officers, as if he was about to pass among them distributing American Good Conduct medals for having conscientiously followed orders. Obviously concerned onlookers everywhere have been anxious about the Tahrir Square demonstration and occupation, and impressed by the army’s cool and impartial conduct in the midst of a situation where police provocation and brutality had worsened violence in the initial stages of the demonstrations. It would have been entirely appropriate for Gates to express American admiration for the army’s performance. But this is the Egyptian army under Egyptian command (which remains, if the American Secretary of Defense has failed to notice, that of President Hosni Mubarak), and it has not, so far as known, been placed under American command – nor has the Egyptian government. That is one source of the present problem. Egypt’s new vice president, Omar Suleiman, after meeting with an influential group of political figures on Sunday, released a statement rejecting “the attempts at foreign intervention into purely Egyptian affairs.” Last week, when Frank Wisner was visiting Cairo, it was not unreasonable to think that the fix was in. Washington’s plan presumably was that Hosni Mubarak would announce that he would not be a candidate for the Egyptian presidency next September. The election would be brought forward. The constitution would be fixed so that Vice President Suleiman could legally take power, if elected (as planned). Support from moderate figures in Egyptian society would be cultivated. Washington had already made clear its confidence in Mr. Suleiman, who has been the CIA’s contact man during the War on Terror in matters of rendition and outsourced torture. The Tahrir Square demonstrators were to be confined to the space they had commandeered, and eased into less conspicuous byways by the army, using tact and avoiding violence (so as not to frighten the tourists). It was assumed that eventually the dual influences of restored normality elsewhere in the country, plus inertia, discouragement and discomfort among the demonstrators, would eventually send the latter home. (The size of the gatherings on Tuesday this week suggests that this may be less easy than thought). Meanwhile, the most active figures in the uprising would be convinced to stand down, go abroad on holiday, or if necessary (who knows?) ‘disappear’ during the weeks to come. Media attention would be refocused on proposed reforms and possible new political personalities so that a new multiparty parliament and government could be unveiled to appease the Egyptian electorate, limit possible contagion in the region, and calm the jittery Israelis. Then President Mubarak made his speech saying that while he would not run for another presidential term in September, he intended to remain president until that election, and made no mention of his son’s possible political ambitions. Opinion in the army and elsewhere sustained him on grounds of honor; it would be humiliating to accept an American dismissal. U.S.-Mubarak relations suddenly turned frigid. The U.S. position now is that there has to be an “orderly transition.” Neither Mr. Mubarak nor his son should run for office. President Obama declared on Tuesday that Egypt’s government transition “must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.” Must? Now? So much for the current politics of the affair. Another mistake Washington and others have made, the Israelis most of all (reasonably enough) was holding Islam responsible. This is not and has never been an Islamist uprising. Neither in Tunis nor in Cairo has religion played a significant role in the events. In a very wise comment, Ghassan Salamé, former Lebanese Minister of Culture, now head of the doctoral school in international studies at the Paris Institute of Political Science, observes that time has passed the Islamists by. They have been obsessed with organizational survival and the war with America. The evolution of Arab society has left them behind. Education, including women’s education, opportunity and globalism have transformed the young elites of all but the most backward countries. Their problems are not ones for which the Muslim Brothers have answers. Today’s movements of insurrection are defeats for the Islamists just as much as for the authoritarian regimes. The Islamists have lost their moral authority, just as have the dictators. These are movements demanding the remoralization of society, national self- respect, popular representation, an end to corruption and to rulers with forty billion dollar Swiss bank accounts (Mubarak’s alleged retirement fund). That’s what it’s about; not terrorism or Israel. © Copyright 2011 by Tribune Media Services International. All Rights Reserved.