Egypt: A US Foreign Policy Quandary

The Egypt situation is difficult for the US from a foreign relations perspective. If the US supports the protesters, it will be seen as an unworthy ally who betrays her friends at opportune moments - a reputation which obviously bodes ill for future US alliances.

On the other hand, if she support Mubarak, she is seen as not supporting freedom and democracy - an especially hypocritical decision given her history, as well as her long military experiment with "bringing democracy to Iraq". America will be seen as supporting a dictatorial tyrant simply for her own convenience (Mubarak is a definite US ally, but who knows what a new government would look like, especially if the Muslim Brotherhood is involved...). If the US actively gets involved, not only will it be seen as meddling to prevent democracy and as supporting a tyrant, but it will also be seen as an imperialist state that uses its power to meddle in world affairs, and will probably gain the anger of the Arab world, since this will only confirm suspicions that the US is ready, willing, and able to use it military and economic force to shape the Middle East to its wishes, thereby denying Middle Easterners the freedom to choose by whom and how they wish to be governed, and, by extension, how they wish to live. This will also harm Mubarak, who will be seen as a US puppet government - This is already a critique by Al Queda of many governments in the Middle East, and making it seem true could be detrimental to US security. Of course, the US can not let "not pissing Al Queda off" be the guiding force of its foreign policy, since that would involve pretty much folding ourselves into a hole and letting the whole world overtake us, since it is America's very existence that it is Al Queda's source of discontent. In this case however, there is a widespread Arab fear that the US wants to rule the Middle East indirectly by installing puppet governments or controlling pre-existing governments through economic incentives (ie bribes in the form of aid), and it seems unwise to play into that.

Meanwhile, as the US wisely refuses to take sides, though it would be better if it were not so obvious that it was biding its time. Meanwhile, it is said that private jets are flying out of Egypt. Presumably, this is because Egyptian higher-ups anticipate a revolution, and want to get out of harm's way before the new regime kicks in. I wonder if Hosni Mubarak was on one of those planes. If so, it would be catastrophic for Egypt, since chaos would ensue, and traditionally, chaos plays to survival of the fittest, with the most brutish thug literally clubbing (or shooting) his way to the top, and taking power. In Egypt, there is an additional concern that this thug could be anti-Western, or perhaps even associated with terrorist groups, thereby threatening the balance in the whole Middle East, and implying anti-Western takeovers throughout the region. This threat is very acute given the Muslim Brotherhood's increasing role in the action on Egyptian streets.

Mubarak still has time to save himself, but not much. In order to do so, he must a) stop trying to pass his reign over to his son, though his son can be put up as a candidate by his party in a truly democratic election, which leads to b) Mubarak must institute true democratic reforms, including (but not limited to) freedom of speech and press, as well as truly democratic elections. In taking away access to social media and imposing curfews, Mubarak can only increase anger and exacerbate the foment by feeding the very causes that led to it in the first place.

Mubarak should learn from King Louis of France, who could have kept his head if he would have acquiesced to the demmands of the National Assembly - instead, every time he tried clamping down on the revolution, he radicalized it by increasing discontent with the government. Interestingly, in France, as in Egypt, one of the major issues was a stagnant economy and high food prices. Egypt has high unemployment rates, and a lack of economic infrastructure - which is part of why Mubarak is so terrified of democracy: It may mean an end to his reign, since his regime has failed to provide the Egypt with prosperity. In general, having a democracy means that governments have to respond to the people's needs to stay in power - and it is Mubarak's unresponsiveness that is causing the foment in the streets, and that is why Mubarak fears a democratic election. Of course, part of his fear is a legitimate fear for Egypt's safety if the Muslim Brotherhood takes power - which is part of why the US has supported his regime.

No matter what happens in Egypt, taken together the revolutions in Tunis and Lebanon, it shows that a new moment has started in Middle Eastern history, where people who are fed up literally taking matters into their own hands - could it be that true democracy is coming to the Middle East? I hope so. However, as Fareed Zakaria points out in his book, "The Future of Freedom", democratic elections can often lead to despotic governments taking power by democratic means - especially in countries that are already unstable. I hope that will not happen here -hopefully, any governments that take power by democratic means will know that the people of the Middle East are too thirsty for freedom to allow a democratic government to not stay that way, and will fear that a turn towards despotism would result in them meeting the same downfall as their predecessors.

Here's to the day when all the world's people live in freedom - as FDR put it, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.