WORLD FEBRUARY 1, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Item: “In recounting Saturday’s deliberations, [administration officials] said Mr. Obama was acutely conscious of avoiding any perception that the United States was once again quietly engineering the ouster of a major Middle East leader. … ‘He said several times that the outcome has to be decided by the Egyptian people, and the U.S. cannot be in a position of dictating events.’”—David E. Sanger and Helene Cooper, The New York Times, January 30.
Item: “It is better for President Obama not to appear that he is the last one to say to President Mubarak “It’s time for you to go.’” —Mohammed ElBaradei, Cairo, January 30.
President Obama’s light and somewhat mysterious touch during the crisis in Egypt is both easy and hard to understand. Easy, because the course of the rebellion is still maddeningly obscure, and he must be careful; and hard, because the historical sense that he is bringing to the American role in this crisis is only partially accurate and is misplaced. The precedents that Obama has in mind seem to be the recent one of the invasion of Iraq and the distant one of the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran (a historical memory that figured prominently in the discussion of his lukewarm reception of the Iranian uprising in 2009)—precedents that inhibit a vigorous new American policy, and confer upon the United States a previous guilt that needs to be expiated by some sort of abstention from the fall of Mubarak, a prior disqualification from positive historical action. The president’s experience of the past two years—especially of Iran’s militant rejection of his “extended hand”—does not appear to have rattled the assumption that he held when he came into office, which is that the United States has behaved villainously in the Arab world and so must now behave penitently, or at least in a way that will not repeat a certain paradigm.
It should be possible to learn from history without becoming a prisoner of the past. Whatever the merit of Obama’s analysis of Iraq in 2003 and Iran in 1953, this is Egypt in 2011, and there are reasons to believe that his notion of American historical responsibility may be unduly fettering the administration from getting on the right side of history. For a start, there is anecdotal evidence that the protestors want America’s support. ElBaradei made this clear when he appeared in Tahrir Square yesterday. A blogger at the demonstrations in Cairo sent out the photograph of a man carrying a placard that reads, “AMERICA: SUPPORT the People NOT the Tyrant.” In Tahrir Square today, Nick Kristof reported via Twitter: “interviewed many folks at Tahrir. They see US as still supporting Mubarak. They plead with US to remove that support.” To be sure, there are also anti-American forces in the Egyptian crowds, but that is still another reason for the president to stand with the pro-American forces. Their pro-Americanism, after all, is their way of indicating that they want a part in a secular world of liberty.
It is precisely the obscurity of the situation, morever, that makes Obama’s support for the democratizers of Egypt more urgent. Since the outcome of the revolution is completely unclear, we must do what we can to influence it. This revolution has so far not been centrally directed, and there will be a struggle over its fruits. Particular factions, the Muslim Brotherhood most notable among them, will attempt to turn the revolution in particular ways, and to take it over; and those factions that seek to prevent an Islamist appropriation of the post-Mubarak moment, those factions that really do aspire to democracy and stability, will need help. Helping these people—our natural allies, philosophically and politically—will hardly count as a stain on America’s record. Why should we not put ourselves in a position to retard and to impede the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been cunningly biding its time?
America’s record in crises of democratization, moreover, is more complicated, and more admirable, than Obama seems to recognize. His apparent view that our support for a dictatorship hobbles us in our support for a democracy, and disqualifies us from a proud and active role in transforming a closed society into an open one, is belied by the splendid precedents of the Philippines, South Korea, and Chile, where the United States wisely and agilely pivoted from cosseting a tyrannical regime to helping to replace it. It was a great day in 1986 when Ronald Reagan dispatched Paul Laxalt to Manila to tell Ferdinand Marcos that his time was up—and it was precisely our previous support for Marcos that made Reagan’s message so credible and so decisive. Reagan was not inhibited by our past (I understand that in his view there had been nothing shameful in our support of an anti-communist dictator, but that is another matter) from demonstrating the flexibility necessary for political and strategic progress. Maybe Frank Wisner is Obama’s Paul Laxalt. We will know soon enough.
We have $3 billion a year worth of leverage over Egypt. Egypt is the largest and most important Arab country. The popular struggle for democracy in Egypt is already the most stirring story in contemporary Arab history—more stirring than the story of Iraq, where liberalization came out of war. The peace treaty between Egypt and Israel is the foundation of the possibilities for peace and prosperity in the region. This, in short, is one of history’s hours of malleability and promise. And the president of the United States is in occultation, equivocating.
Leon Wieseltier is the literary editor for The New Republic.
32 comments
I think Obama should write a book called "Profiles in Caution".
- nathang
February 1, 2011 at 12:39am
With respect, $3 billion is a lot of money but as leverage it is peanuts. Far more serious: Egypt's overall economic health or lack thereof, economic infrastructure and its ability (echoed by that of other regional nations) to provide a future for burgeoning populations in huge but environmentally challenging lands. We have tried, I think, to provide incentives to businesspeople in Egypt and elsewhere in the greater Middle East - but the primary source of revenues there remains petroleum. Given that the population of Egypt could double in about a generation, and many people, even educated people are already poor and underemployed, and drought and environmental damage are huge problems regionally - in Iraq for example the rivers are running low because of dams in Turkey - Israeli forests burned in the drought - and there is in general an inability to share resources within nations let alone across a region that also suffers from frequent strife, warfare, terrorism and religious extremism - what is $3 billion? We should be asking ourselves: ok now what do we do. What kind of long term solutions will not only provide better futures for the people of Egypt - and other Middle Eastern nations, Africa too - but also provide stability in order to minimize the risk of warfare and global economic destabilization? Already, the price of crude has gone up and the stock markets have gone down. It's easy to argue for "democracy," difficult to offer practical solutions but the latter is what has to be done. Also, on a personal note: people in Egypt (I hear) are afraid of the chaos. People are being hurt, their livelihoods destroyed. It's easy to romanticize revolution, difficult to deal with the actual effects. Chaos, disorder, escaped prisoners, destruction of life and property - this is not a bloodless change and given that so many in Egypt are so young and others are quite philosophically extreme the situation is difficult. Probably, Obama was similarly reserved regarding Iran for the same sorts of reasons - many of us were upset that he didn't speak out more clearly on behalf of the people there - but rationally there has to be a workable plan and long range solutions to help the people and also protect our interests as well as global economic interests - which ultimately are intertwined. This isn't the same as being weak or apologetic.
- Sophia
February 1, 2011 at 12:50am
Leon, Here is another perspective. Perhaps Obama is working behind the scene with the one stabilizing force in Egypt, the army. And perhaps the Army understands (get the message, with push from Obama -- who has leverage points with the army) that it is necessary for democratic reforms. And perhaps it is best if Obama does not speak up now because he knows that he be more effective bring about a peaceful transition by working behind the scene and keep his pulpit powder dry for use if need be later on. Just a thought Stephen from Minneapolis
- SRC--Mpls
February 1, 2011 at 1:19am
Uprisings that succeed are those from within; uprisings that fail are those from without. Now it seems most everybody (with the exception, perhaps, of LW) has gotten the religion, from Hitchens (yesterday's Slate column) to Brooks (today's NYT column), and now believe that the uprising in Egypt, as with all successful uprisings, is a "quest for dignity", a quest that is undermined by external forces that preserve a culture of dependence, as in Iraq. So here is LW, a supporter of the uprising, but not trustful of it, concerned as he is about sinister influences from within, urging on external forces. Nevertheless, between the hypocrits and their new-found religion, blowing in whatever direction is current opinion, and LW's consistent (if somewhat misguided) path, I'll take the latter.
- rayward
February 1, 2011 at 7:57am
There is a difference between making love and making pornography. She will always know the difference.
- jacko
February 1, 2011 at 8:11am
In the event that anyone should flatter my fortune cookie please allow that I am off to reconcile a root canal without apologies for the diverse diet that contributed to its necessity.
- jacko
February 1, 2011 at 8:37am
As usual off the mark. Mosadegh? Taken over by theocracy later on. Iraq democracy? Killing of ethnic neighbors and other religions continue. The US has only the power to watch helplessly Egypt becoming another Islamic theocracy. The 3 Billion a year to sell Egypt armaments should morph into family planning. The root of the problems of Egypt as it is in Gaza the wold most populous place, and the rest of the PA? Over population! Egypt can't possibly feed so many people with so few resources. Same for most Arab countries. The ignorant want democracy in Arab states where it can't possibly fit. It will always result in Islamic bent rulers such as Erdogan in Turkey today and Egypt tomorrow. Don't forget! I told you so.
- Poupic
February 1, 2011 at 9:40am
rayward “Uprisings that succeed are those from within; uprisings that fail are those from without.” This is extremely simplistic. Leaving aside the how one judges success, it’s not always obvious who is calling the shots when there is upheaval in a country. Obama is right to be cautious and not only because of a fear of the Muslim Brotherhood having a voice in any new government. It’s likely that people in the State Department have more information about the true nature of the anti-Mubarak demonstrations than does the media or even well informed people like LW. Reporters on the ground are not necessarily the best people to inform us about the true nature of events. All they know is what people in the crowds tell them and each participant knows as much about what the events there than does a soldier in the midst of a huge battle which isn’t very much. Most pundits believed that the Rumanian uprising that overthrew Ceausescu occurred spontaneously. This is how it was presented on the newscast at the time, but it was actually manipulated from behind the scenes by the ruling party that needed to get rid of him and his wife. The same may have been true for the demonstrations in Tunisia that led to that countries dictator’s resignation.
- arnon
February 1, 2011 at 10:25am
The problem in the autocratic Arab states has been the devil's bargain that has been made between the despotic rulers and the Islamists. In exchange for not destabilizing the regime, the Islamists have been given a free hand teaching the people about their "religious obligations". So, if you believe the Pew Research surveys (which I don't think anyone has a problem with), "Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion." We need to get past our sentimental, stupid fantasies that freedom, voting, and democracy all go together. They don't. When you give the vote to people who have never been educated in the basic principles of democracy, they use the power they acquire at the ballot box to impose their will and crush their opponents once and for all. One would think that someone had learned something from the "democratic experiment" in Gaza, but apparently not. Enlightened long-term policy would be to firmly support autocratic kleptocracies but to condition our support upon the implementation of teaching reforms that impart democratic values to the nation's youth. That way when there's a people's revolution in 2030, there's a chance it will lean our way. Right now, if these tyrants fall, we will be faced with one hostile Jihadist state after another looking for opportunities to subvert and destroy us. It will have nothing to do with whether or not we supported their revolution. What gratitude was shown to President Carter for tying the Shah's hands and enabling the people's revolution of Iran? All this has little to do with being on the right side or the wrong side of history. It's just common sense and basic sanity to prefer petty tyrants you can work with to the genocidal theocrats of the Muslim Brotherhood.
- willjames77
February 1, 2011 at 11:19am
I think we will need a larger bandwagon, so many passengers jumping on board.
- rayward
February 1, 2011 at 11:24am
Mr. Wieseltier's criticism rings a bit hollow in light of his recent piece, "Eyeless in Cairo", which, in light of recent events, was stunningly short-sighted and narrow-minded.
- markgoodman
February 1, 2011 at 11:53am
So are we past pie-eyed multiculty?
- jacko
February 1, 2011 at 12:30pm
It looks like Mubarak's regime is not long for this world. Is there a way that America can support the dissidents while reducing the likelihood that the Muslim Brotherhood will gain power? I fear not, and I fear especially for the fate of Egypt's religious minorities.
- Ambrose
February 1, 2011 at 1:10pm
willjames - I read a great quote yesterday, that the clock always eventually runs out on realpolitik. I'd normally nod in sad agreement with your sentiments, but I suspect we don't have that option anymore, I suspect that whole framework you advocate for is dead. I wonder if Americans can understand that these events are beyond our control. All we can do is ride this tiger and watch, do what nation/states do and look after our interests - but we're in no way in control. Sophia makes great sense as always. Leon, I admire your sentiments to a degree, but how do you personally know that Obama is being cautious? By his public statements? I call it quiet. If Obama Co did anything less at this stage, they'd be a arrogant, reckless fools. We cannot know what is happening behind the scenes at the moment while leaders scramble to take advantage of this tremendous opportunity without further endangering lives. Even Israel is quiet, and to me - they have much more at stake than we ever will. There is no out-of-the-box political structure sitting on a shelf somewhere waiting to be taken out in case of instant revolution in Egypt. I'd like the emotional satisfaction of a full-throated hell-yeah too, but then I don't have to run the world. Obama does.
- WandreyCer
February 1, 2011 at 1:42pm
I don't know much about Egypt, but I know this. People "in the streets" or a better cliche yet: "in the Arab street" are (1) vocally calling for US/Obama's support and (2) NOT chanting "death to America!" I'm thinking the 6-month cost/benefit trade-off on this is (a) full-support-to-Democratic-change = absolutely no diplomatic cost to the US whatsoever and maybe $0.10/gallon at the pump for awhile, while the benefit of (b) cautionary support hedging with both sides is: absolute confirmation in the minds of millions of Egyptians (and Arabs in the wider Arab world) that the US is craven and morally bankrupt - an attitude that will exact real costs on America, her economy and diplomacy for decades to come. What if we back change and Egyptian change materializes in the form of a radical fundamentalist regime as happened in Iran? First, that is an unlikely outcome that Egyptians do not appear prepared to tolerate, second, that's the cost of principle. There are principles we can't afford to compromise, this is one of them.
- dcwood10
February 1, 2011 at 2:50pm
"Pro-American"? People sick of being tortured by American-trained police, using American-supplied equipment, under a dictator propped up and funded by America - who are begging for that to stop - are not thereby "pro-American". In fact, we're lucky they're not a lot more anti-American. If Egypt were were to fund a brutal, tyrannical American dictatorship for 30 years under, just to pick a name, Dick Cheney - by what definition of the word is he not "undead"? - we'd be a lot more anti-Egyptian than that. Also, what if we are indeed doing the best thing we can to influence events - which is, very little? (One could distinguish between *appearing* to do little and *doing* little, but in a Wikileaks world, that might be a thin distinction.) The differences between the Philippines then and Egypt now make the comparison inapt at best, unless qualified out of useful existence. It just seems that every day is "dump on Obama" day for this author...
- floydsm8
February 1, 2011 at 4:02pm
dcwood10, Why does it seem to you unlikely that the Egyptians do not appear to tolerate a radical fundamentalist regime? One indication that you are wrong is that, as Mr. Wieseltier points out, the Muslim Brotherhood feels it can afford to "bide its time." I understand that there are circumstances when our principles and our interests conflict, and that in some of these circumstances, we should allow ourselves to be governed by our principles. I am unconvinced, however, that the Egypt situation is a "cost of principle" scenario, because our principles are not all on the side of revolution in Egypt. Our principles also include standing for the rights of minorities and women, and of preserving Israel. If a version of democracy takes root in Egypt, it is likely to be a form of democracy in which the majority, consisting of Sunni peasants, will abuse the rights of minorities; also they might set a foreign policy that puts religious "principles" (eg. "Drive the Jews into the sea!") over their own self-interest. Af for your remark about $.10/gallon at the pump, I am lost. Egypt is a net oil importer, and were this not true, they are not wealthy enough to shower riches on their allies (This is why it is the current policy for America to bribe Egypt, rather than the other way around.).
- Ambrose
February 1, 2011 at 4:18pm
Ambrose, In what Arab country is there not some fundamentalist movement like the Arab brotherhood? Their presence and even their power does not equate to an unhinged theocratic regime. Syria has them, as does Lebanon and Jordan and for its part Turkey, while not Arab, is actually under the rule of the "Islamist" party at present, its democracy functions quite well in the meantime. There are millions of Egyptians. If their sympathies were with the Muslim Brotherhood these protests would look a lot like the Iranian "death to America" protests of the 1970s. They don't. Instead the protesters are calling for American support. Of course we can do little in practice to support them, but we can make it clear what side we're on. One hopes that the American embassy of the democratically governed Egypt of 2020 can send diplomats to debate brothers of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egyptian colleges who will challenge us, rhetorically, asking "where was America? Why did America, with its outstanding value, support oppressive authoritarians, when stability served American economic interests?" One hopes the diplomats will answer: "Surely you would not have had us invade? Surely you must understand that any direct support we offer democratic opposition will be turned against the opposition, so that dissidents are accused of being in the pocket of the CIA? Surely you know that overt pressure, when Egyptians themselves were not yet ready to rise up, would have resulted in more oppression for Egyptians? We stepped in when Egyptians were ready and called for us to." And to your question about $0.10 at the pump - ah, sorry - the price is rising and it is rising in relation to this crisis and the general instability that it foments in a region that generates oil, including oil that must pass through the Suez canal, which is controlled by Egypt. This is widely understood, I think it's smacks a bit of intellectual dishonesty to try to call me out on the point, either that or you are poorly informed. You can expect me to practice more respect to reasonable points you make.
- dcwood10
February 1, 2011 at 5:13pm
Flagrant nonsense by Wieseltier. Sheer hubris. The idea that Obama should rustle up a Grand Strategy while our typically inept and over-funded "intelligence" community scrambles around, late again, to figure out who the likely next players are...nonsense on stilts. What's being advocated here is the same sort of shoot-from-the-hip policy that killed the Diem brothers, and lots of other folks before the dust settled.
- Robert Powell
February 1, 2011 at 5:15pm
But ... but ... c'mon, you guys! Leon saw a photo of a guy with a sign asking for America's help!
- W_Bombay
February 1, 2011 at 5:56pm
dcwood10, I didn't mean to offend. I do wish I shared your optimism, but here are two reasons why Egypt is different from other Arab countries with influential fundamentalist sects: 1) Egypt has a greater number of people who are member of vulnerable minority groups, and for them, demagogues are more dangerous than dictators, and 2) the Muslim Brotherhood is very much more popular in Egypt than other fundamentalist groups are in their respective countries.
- Ambrose
February 1, 2011 at 6:15pm
Fantastic post RP.
- WandreyCer
February 1, 2011 at 7:58pm
Agree with Wand. Good post RP. The Army did not make the same mistake as the Imperial Army under the Shah; and Mubarak did not make the same mistake as the Shah. And Obama did not make the same mistake as Obama. And, One would hope, the Egyptian people will not make the same mistake as Iranians. Thankfully, whatever the force of the Brotherhood, there is no Khomeini in Egypt, and whatever the polls say about adultery and stoning, it is unlikely that Egypt would go down that road. Hitchens has it right: the stability of the sort that proto-fascist regimes such as that of Mubarak provides (for the West, for the US, for Israel) is no stability at all. One week - that's all it took for the regime to topple. We need more reliable allies than these.
- icarusr
February 1, 2011 at 8:23pm
"[Obama] said that he told Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in a telephone conversation after the Egyptian leader's speech on Tuesday night that "an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful and it must begin now." Mr. Obama said that Mr. Mubarak "recognizes that the status quo is not sustainable, that a change must take place." While saying that it was not the role of the United States to pick Egypt's leader, Mr. Obama said that he told Mr. Mubarak that the changes that need to begin immediately include engagement with opposition figures and preparations for free and fair elections."
- MOLLYSIMON
February 1, 2011 at 8:34pm
Leon Wieseltier bashes the president on foreign policy. What else is new? Funny how, without all the relevant information, he knows what the president should do. He and many like him are always in a rush to condemn.
- scrubby
February 2, 2011 at 9:53am
Old deatloam, at it again.
- subterran
February 2, 2011 at 10:18am
Amr Bargisi "But regardless of my own opinion, what is clear is that Egypt lacks the sort of political culture that can sustain a liberal democratic regime. The superficiality of the opposition's demands is matched only by the absurdity of the regime's discourse. Without knowledge of the likes of Locke and Burke, Hamilton and Jefferson, my country is doomed to either unbridled radicalism or continued repression." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703445904576117993383030076.html#U4018268485987RE
- noga1
February 2, 2011 at 10:47am
- Wrote Leon, "It is precisely the obscurity of the situation, morever, that makes Obama’s support for the democratizers of Egypt more urgent.". OK, the situation is obscure and these democratizers are an ambiguous lot, so take action...immediately. I'm looking forward to the details in Part II of The Plan.
- michaelg
February 2, 2011 at 3:42pm
I have just posted a somewhat substantial critique of Leon Wieseltier's ruminations above and of what's at stake for him and some others in the U.S. response to developments in Egypt. It's at TPM. Jim Sleeper http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/02/egyptian_democracys_false_new_friends/
- jimsleeper
February 2, 2011 at 5:35pm
This column was made absolete by subsequent events. Obama isn't equivocationg any more. It's always risky, not to say foolish, to make judgments about an event before it is over.
- arnon
February 2, 2011 at 6:10pm
"It's always risky, not to say foolish, to make judgments about an event before it is over." True enough - unless the simple theme is Obama is naive and will fuck it up; or that a despotic "friend" is better than a democratic, but potentially unfriendly, neighbour. As Obama said in response to a stupid question once, "I like to know what I am talking about." Leon and Marty never have to suffer from that handicap.
- icarusr
February 2, 2011 at 11:02pm
I'm curious about these Pew survey results that everyone and their sister is whipping out at key moments to silence the naive dewy-eyed enthusiasts for the Egyptian democratic uprising. Is it possible that in Egypt, as a highly surveilled police state, people might respond to surveys with something other than complete guileless honesty? Is it possible that said polling did not only target a middle-class respondent pool but tried to encompass the lower middle class and the peasantry too? Is it possible that some respondents wanted to push some buttons presumed to be there on the side of the (Western) survey operatives? Is it possible that the questions were framed in such a way as to push the respondents toward one answer option? Is it possible that the responses, even if given anonymously, were configured by an internal desire to fit in with -- conservative, religious -- specific local environments? We know that in the U.S. and in other countries people -- especially those with less education -- can be very cautious about revealing their true feelings/opinions and often express ones they think the questioners want to hear (especially when the questioners sound more educated), hence leading to some misreadings of the public mind. Why should that not be a danger elsewhere too? I don't dispute, incidentally, that there is a deep and large population of Egypt that is not internet-savvy, English-speaking, or desiring of a liberal social order involving extensive rights for women, but that is a little different from assuming they are just panting for a theocratic regime to instal itself at the earliest possible opportunity.
- ironyroad
February 7, 2011 at 10:53pm