Its mid-morning on Sunday, January 30, 2011 here on the East Coast of the USA and hopefully events are not going to move so fast as to make this post obsolete before it even hits the internet. I am feeling inclined to throw down a few thoughts about the evolving events in Egypt and the U.S. response to them.
After watching the events in Egypt and the somewhat confused U.S. government response unfold over the last few days I feel driven to put my oar in the water. Although Hosni Mubarak remains President of Egypt at the time I am writing this it seems difficult to see how he will remain in that position for much longer. Quite apart from the popular outrage being witnessed in the streets of Egypt’s cities it is not at all clear that he retains the full support of the army. Given that the military, and more particularly the army, has been the key constituency underpinning Egypt’s political regime since the early 1950s, any significant loss of support in the higher reaches of this institution would sound the death-knell of Mubarak’s presidency.
Here in the U.S. it has become increasingly clear the the Obama administration has abandoned Mubarak. It is not clear if this is a consequence of the administration deciding to cut their losses on the basis of assessments that Mubarak cannot remain in power or if it is instead the result of an active decision to support Mubarak’s ouster as part of a broader policy push. On balance I suspect a decision was taken several days ago to take the chance to replace Mubarak. This would fit nicely with administration efforts to emphasize the extent to which both the Bush and obama administrations were pushing Mubarak, unsuccessfully, to introduce democratic reforms.
Since Friday it has become clear that whatever initial confusion existed has been surmounted. Hilary Clinton has been pushed to the front as the voice of the administration actively tying Mubarak’s hands and making it more difficult for him to take the actions that would have been necessary for him to retain power. By demanding the release of dissidents, free elections, insisiting that security forces not use any violence against protestors, and indicating that there will be a review of the annual subsidy paid to Egypt the Obama administration has, if nothing else, made it abundantly clear to the Egyptian military that there is no support for Mubarak remaining in power to be found in Washington.
On the Sunday morning television circuit Clinton has made it clear, without directly calling for Mubarak’s immediate resignation, that this is what the administration expects.
“We want to see an orderly transition so that no-one fills a void, that there not be a void, that there be a well thought-out plan that will bring about a democratic participatory government,”
This statement is most interesting for what it suggests about the administration’s unwillingness to accept a new strongman as a replacement for Mubarak. The insistence on a democratic transition is a call for much more far-reaching change than would be usual in such a situation. Given the nature of the Egyptian political regime which was succintly described by Lee Smith a few days ago the Obama administration is playing with fire.
Smith’s point was that:
even if [Mubarak] stepped down, or just decided not to run for president later this year, the Mubarak regime would not fall because in reality there is no Mubarak regime as such. Rather, it is a Free Officers regime, one that has lasted almost half a century, or dating back to the 1952 coup that deposed King Farouk. During that period, the regime has survived 3 wars with Israel and another in Yemen. And that’s not all: almost as bad as Gamal abd-el Nasser’s public humiliation after losing the six-day war in 1967 was the regional isolation imposed on Cairo after Anwar Sadat’s peace treaty with Jerusalem. But the regime survived both, as well as Sadat’s assassination and a subsequent civil war throughout the 1980s and 1990s with armed Islamists, many of whom went on to form the leadership of al Qaeda. A regime that has been tested under that kind of fire is unlikely to fold in the face of 50,000 protesters throwing rocks.
To have a true democratic transition this Free Officers regime will have to be cast aside. If this happens and truly free elections take place it is more than likely that the Muslim Brotherhood will emerge as the next Egyptian government. This is not because the Egyptian people necessacarily endorse its particular politics but beause it will be the only mass organization in the country that has sufficient brand recognition to make a substantial showing in a free election. It is entirely likely that there will be hundreds of political parties campaigning for a share of the vote in a confused post-authoritarian environment. This will inevitably result in a hopelessly fractionated Parliament in which a determined united bloc will have an influence that goes far beyond its actual share of the vote.
I suspect that the Obama administration is trying to preserve the most important elements of its alliance with the Egyptian government by trying to make it clear to the Egyptian public that nothing is being done to save Mubarak. Unfortunately there is nothing to suggest that this will be seen as anything other than a cynical ploy designed to preserve a detested peace with Israel. From what I have seen on Al-Jazeera it seems clear enough that the Egyptian public is firmly convinced that the U.S. has been active in propping up the hated Mubarak and that it is furthermore the second most important enemy of the Egyptian people after Israel. This attempt to curry favor is in all likelihood domed to failure.
Just because a government is popularly elected doesn’t mean that it will be more likely to support Western interests or get along with its neighbors.
