SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Lessons of Cairo

FEBRUARY 10, 2011

The Lessons of Cairo

BY THE EDITORS

The spread of democracy around the world is a natural American aspiration, but sometimes the sincerity of that aspiration is tested by the disruptions of democratization. The astonishing events in Egypt are such a test. They are so thrilling in their purpose and so unclear in their outcome. They provoke exhilaration and anxiety. But they demonstrate to a new generation that the democratic longing is itself one of history’s most powerful causes. And, for the United States, they make clear that the spread of democracy is not only a matter of morality, but also a matter of strategy.

The events in Egypt have created confusion in the American foreign policy debate. Some conservatives who were only recently champions of Middle Eastern democracy rushed to defend Mubarak. (Dick Cheney called the Egyptian dictator “a good friend.”) Others on the right were more consistent—applauding the protesters for their stand against autocracy. On the left, erstwhile skeptics of democracy promotion hailed the pro-democracy protesters as heroes, and lambasted their erstwhile ally in the White House for failing to denounce the Egyptian regime. Then there were the statements of Obama himself. He seemed irresolute in the early days of the protests, suddenly uncomfortable with the global leadership that was being asked of him, not least by the brave people in Tahrir Square. He issued platitudes about liberty, but declined to make a forceful public stand against Mubarak.

We understand the impulse toward caution: Chaos in Egypt could bring some decidedly undemocratic people to power, this time with theocratic inclinations. This is a nerve-wracking moment. But, as a practical matter, the United States cannot base its policy on nostalgia for a discredited autocrat whose days in office are numbered. Is it realism that is needed? Then let us have realism, which demands that we align ourselves—and our enormous influence upon the Egyptian government and the Egyptian army—with the Egypt that is emerging, and with the attempt to assist it toward a secular democracy.

Democratization is an American interest. This is not only for philosophical and ethical reasons, which should be self-evident, but also for concrete ones. And democratization as a pillar of American foreign policy does not mean invasions and covert ops; it means that we support and encourage the citizens of an authoritarian polity who have been aroused to struggle for democracy on their own. Most people struggle for democracy because they wish to live a dignified life, in openness and in prosperity, not because they wish to replace one tyranny with another. Historically speaking, we want such liberalizers on our side. America backed Mubarak despite our country’s ideals; we have been hypocrites in this regard, and the Egyptian people know it. And yet the courageous men and women in Tahrir Square nonetheless seek our support, because they know, too, that we are, in the unfettered way we conduct our politics and our society and our economy, the most fully realized example of what they want. Except in extreme instances, the United States will not advance its long-term interests by preferring regimes to peoples. More years of Mubarak, and more months of American unclarity, will only increase resentment toward the United States among Egyptians. The country’s least liberal factions will benefit from this public mood—which, in turn, will be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy.

Now, the hard question. What if, in promoting democracy in the Arab world, we find ourselves acquiescing in the inclusion of Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood in the new arrangements? Would this not be both a moral and a strategic disaster? A number of commentators have waved away the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, arguing that the group is not actually as radical as everyone thinks. Whatever the evolution of the movement since the hideousness of Hassan Al Banna, it strikes us as glib to dismiss the worry about its participation in an Egyptian government. It is true that a majority of Egyptians and a majority of the protesters do not want the Islamists in power; but the 30 percent of the electorate that the Muslim Brotherhood commands is not trivial. We are supposed to be reassured because the Brotherhood opposes Al Qaeda. Good for them-but what about women’s rights? Religious freedom? The treaty with Israel?

And yet we are where we are. Mubarak is over. He was not overthrown by the Islamists. And the Islamists owe what social power they possess to him and his asphyxiation of his society. So we find ourselves at one of those historical moments that bring to mind Frost’s adage that “the best way out is always through.”

We recognize that liberal democracies do not spring up overnight. Where decades of cruel autocracy have devastated civil society, diplomatic skill will be required for the pangs of transition. But this diplomacy must be based on the recognition that the breakthrough of the liberal democratic temper in Egypt is not only a crisis for the United States, but also an opportunity. Cairo has taken its place alongside Budapest and Prague as one of the modern capitals of liberal revolt. Now we must do everything we can to keep this liberal revolt liberal.

This article ran in the March 3, 2011, issue of the magazine.

For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 33 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

33 comments

Your editorial is high sounding, but very very vague. What specifically do you think that Obama should do and say? My opinion -- he should call for Mubarak to step aside, period. If because of the Egyptian constitution it is better for all for him to remain technically in office, so be it, but he should make clear that he is exercising no authority. He should also call for Suleiman to step aside. Who should exercise authority? An ad hoc group roughly representative of various sectors of Egyptian society. Would they be perfectly representative, people who would prevail in a free election? Probably not-- but anything is better than Mubarak in charge or even Suleiman in charge. Equally important, Obama should demand an end to imprisonment, torture and killings of protestors -- and he should speak out against what has already happened. Please, editors, enough long winded and high sounding talk. What Egyptians most want is an end to oppression and departure from power of the person who led the oppression. That can be accomplished immediately, with no need for an "orderly transition." NR should speak out clearly in support.

- PeteBeck

February 10, 2011 at 6:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As PeteBeck suggets, nobody (on our side) has a plan. Our government, with all its well-paid experts, was unprepared! They should have considered the possible alternative scenarios, risks, and opportunities long before before Mubarak's predictable political or personal demise. The Western press has done a poor job of reporting and analyzing the Egyptian situation. We're getting a lot of happy talk about the Muslim Brotherhood. They have never been liberals. Hamas is their Palestinian branch just 100 miles from Port Said. That tells all. They will not be seduced by birthday cakes (Didn't Robert McFarlane deliver one to Khomeni?) and seats in parliament. They will not be co-opted. They know what they want. We have no strategy to isolate them and confront their ideology. The Editors say, "We recognize that liberal democracies do not spring up overnight..." Strap on your seat belts and should belts, ladies and gentlemen! We're in for a long ride through the air pockets!

- amidut

February 10, 2011 at 6:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Full steam ahead for democracy in Egypt! Why not Iran, too? Why is that off the table among the bien-pensants?

- amidut

February 10, 2011 at 7:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Congratulations, TNR. I don't doubt that there was spirited debate at TNR about this editorial. I view this as a turning point for TNR (and for those policy makers who may be influenced by it). Sure, I might quibble around the margins. But the thrust of the editorial is far more important. Again, congratulations.

- rayward

February 10, 2011 at 7:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If "Mubarak is over" then why is it necessary for Obama to come out against him? This editorial doesn't make a lot of sense. Everyone thinks that "Democratization is an American interest" - the question is how we get there. I have no idea what "the way through" really looks like. If you want to say that the US should cease all aid to Egypt then go ahead, but you don't - you're content to thump your chest instead.

- NR851651

February 10, 2011 at 8:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In response to NR851651, the article is very clear on why it is important to come out against Mubarak: to show the peope of Egypt that the U.S. recognize their legitimate aspirations for democracy. It is fairly clear at this point that Mubarak is on his way out; even if Egyptian army manages to put down the current protests, the people are clearly fed up and will not accept his rule in the long term. I can understand why the Obama Administration was cautious at first, given the very real possibility that the revolution could have fizzled out like the one in Iran, but it is now clear that the Egyptian people are not only serious about democracy, but willing to fight and die for it. It's time for Obama to forget about "orderly transfers of power" if he wants the U.S. to have any clout in determining the government that takes Mubarak's place.

- tlshapiro

February 10, 2011 at 9:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

After the end of WWII the Iranians were absolutely pro-American. In 1954 after a new elected Iranian democratic government under Mossadeq came to power the British monopoly on Persian oil was threatened and Churchill pushed President Truman to topple the Iranian President with a CIA plot. Supporting Mossadeq's intentions and actions, Truman refused. Shortly thereafter, Churchill prevailed upon Eisenhower to oust Mossadeq, install the young Shah M. Reza Pahlavi and essentially take over the Iranian oil resources. It was this hypocritcal failure to respect an enthusiastic democracy in the region that poisoned middle eastern regard for the U.S. If it is possible to learn a lesson from the ensuing half a century of opression, hatred and strife, it must be that there is a down side to the business of encouraging strife and selling our integrity so we can monopolize access to a resource owned by others. What kind of screwball accounting and haywire values can adjudge endless hatred and war to be "in our interest".

- JohnC

February 10, 2011 at 10:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'd be happy if Obama started to speak out for liberalism in the US. Why should he advocate for change abroad that he is unwilling or unable to bring himself to advocate at home?

- drofnats1

February 10, 2011 at 11:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where's Marty Peretz? What have they done to him? I demand to know.

- amidut

February 10, 2011 at 11:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Looks like Mubarak will resign ... will TNR give Obama his due?

- NR851651

February 10, 2011 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hello, can anybody figure out why Obama supported regime change in Egypt, but not Iran?

- amidut

February 10, 2011 at 1:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mubarak may resign, but if the army takes over then the changes will be cosmetic. The army takeover will not leave Egypt's peace agreements unaffected since there will be a fight over ideology and the new leaders will have to show that they are with "the people" by making anti-Israel noises. The best we can hope for is reduced Egyptian Israeli cooperation and not an abandonment of the treaty. It is here that the US can play a role since US billions and US arms can be a huge persuader for an army. Modern armies run on cash and not on ideology.

- arnon

February 10, 2011 at 2:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Amidut has a point.

- Sophia

February 10, 2011 at 3:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

PS with all this going on in the ME and the momentous implications - we should have a "Spine" even if MP has been (?) banished. He was on CNN the other night - kinda stuck his foot in it - about the beating of journalists in Egypt - Piers Morgan couldn't find anybody else in Israel to talk to? Sigh.

- Sophia

February 10, 2011 at 3:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

These are lovely, specific-free sentiments - reeking of hubris. We have no business getting in the way of what is occuring there organically right now. This is not about America! I know it's hard to fathom, but not everything is. I'm sure we are doing everything we can behind the scenes that can responsibly be done without pissing off the world and playing the plutocratic hegemon and pound our chests - making asses of ourselves and redirecting the course of a sovereign nation, an ally. Meddling hubristic TNR-speak. Regime change has worked so well for us hasn't it guys!? amidut - I'm sure Obama wouldn't mind regime change in Iran, who wouldn't? Egypt and Iran are interchangable somehow only to someone not from either country or anywhere in the area - or who thinks all Arabs are the same people. Besides the fact that Iran has not been a client state ally of America's and a friend to Israel for the last 30 years (to put it mildly), do you have any ideas on realistically how Obama personally should stomp out and accomplish regime change in Iran? And what specfically he should do afterwards if, by miracle, he personally can do it? And where we are supposed to get any money or troops or anything else for such an adventure?

- WandreyCer

February 10, 2011 at 4:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also - I think the head of the CIA standing up on live TV announcing that Mubarek was going to resign, when the man clearly isn't ready to, counts as an obvious push from America. I'm sure everyone on the planet gets that loud and clear, why not TNR and too many on this list?

- WandreyCer

February 10, 2011 at 4:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So I was totally wrong.

- NR851651

February 10, 2011 at 5:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks Wandrey. Well said. It may come as a shock to some but everything isn't about America (nor Israel).

- tnmats

February 10, 2011 at 5:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It may come as a shock to some but everything isn't about America (nor Israel)." Well, in the Arab World nearly everything is about "Yahoodis."

- arnon

February 10, 2011 at 6:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Meanwhile, the non-resignation of Mubarak leaves things unsettled to say the least. And, whether Egypt's internal policies aren't about us Egypt's situation certainly is important to us, and to the rest of the world.

- Sophia

February 10, 2011 at 6:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia, I just watched Marty on Piers Morgan and I thought he made a valid point. Americans reporters are shocked at their mistreatment, however as Marty points out, this is how reporters in the Arab world are routinely treated. Also, since when did reporters make the story about themselves? Anderson Cooper has willingly been interviewed about his beating. He is so enjoying this moment in the sun. It's like, "Hey, I got my media chops." He really should refuse to talk about himself--and basically say what Marty says, which is this is how Arab reporters and many others around the world are treated. But I'd rather talk about the people in the streets. This isn't about me." Narcissism is exactly the right word. And he's right, these people are high on the fumes of revolution. I don't think I've agreed more with Marty in years.

- MOLLYSIMON

February 10, 2011 at 7:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-02-10-egyptintelligence_N.htm "Clapper described the group as an "umbrella" organization for a "variety of movements." In the case of Egypt, he said, the brotherhood is "a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam."

- arnon

February 10, 2011 at 8:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hard to believe that anyone in the Obama administration would refer to the Muslim Brotherhood as "largely secular."

- arnon

February 10, 2011 at 8:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From Andrew Sullivan, I thought well said: Yglesias Award Nominee 10 FEB 2011 08:03 PM by Patrick Appel "Although the 'prop-up-Mubarak' position has recently solidified on talk radio and Fox News, during the early days of the Egyptian crisis, the only clear principle that emerged from the right was that Obama was wrong. The terrible complexity of the situation, the conundrums and impossible trade-offs, were never acknowledged. Has the Obama Administration been totally consistent from day to day? No. Is it driven more by developing facts on the ground than driving those facts? Yes. And good luck to anyone who thinks that he can do better in this diplomatic and moral morass," - Heather Mac Donald, Secular Right.

- WandreyCer

February 10, 2011 at 8:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would like to hear Clapper's rationale for a largely secular non-violent Muslim Brotherhood.

- amidut

February 10, 2011 at 8:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I would like to hear Clapper's rationale for a largely secular non-violent Muslim Brotherhood." So would I, but I am not holding my breath.

- arnon

February 10, 2011 at 8:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“For the moment, the Muslim Brotherhood's lax, backseat role has added to Egyptian liberal leaders' confidence. "I don't think they can be a leader of the opposition," says Ghad party leader Shadi Taha. "Looking at the political playground, there might be some support for the Muslim Brotherhood, but it can't be more than 15 percent." Yet in a country where few people have any experience voting, a tightly organized political movement stands to mobilize voters more effectively than the looser, liberal organizations now leading the demonstrations. And therein lies the true genius of the Muslim Brotherhood's strategy: It knows that it can win in the long run, if it can emerge relatively unscathed over the short run.” http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/the-muslim-brotherhoods-strategy-in-egypt/71040/ They are following the strategy of a “Popular Fronts” which makes it appear that they are only one of the players and don’t want to take over the government.

- arnon

February 10, 2011 at 9:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why do we think that a half million or million people taking to the streets constitutes "democracy"? How do we know that they represent the other 79 million Egyptians? Dhurtado

- NR143296

February 10, 2011 at 11:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wonder if either Omar Suleiman or el Baradei will become the Kerensky of Egypt?

- arnon

February 10, 2011 at 11:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The sad fact is that it is very hard to support a movement without leaders, in a country that has banned political parties for decades. Those leaders may exist, but I have yet to see them and I think the crowds in Tahrir Square would be just as hard pressed to name any. We cannot create or pick new leaders for Egyptians, and the Obama administration is doing a good job of recognizing this. So far the Muslim Brotherhood and ElBaradai are the only recognizable options being shown, and both have limited appeal (for both Egyptians and the US). Egyptians obviously need some time to grow new leaders. They are capable of doing so, and doing so quickly (Wael Ghonim MAY be a good example), but quickly does not mean overnight. It will take weeks at least (even that is being very optimistic, but I am optimistic about this). Unfortunately the Egyptian Army may need to step in to keep the peace while Egyptians form parties and pick their representatives. Facing this what exactly should the Obama administration be doing? I would like to see them call for the removal of the curfew and emergency law, I'd like to see them call for the removal of bans on political parties, and I'd like to see them communicating publicly with the few opposition leaders and parties that do exist. Beyond that there really isn't a lot that we can (or should) do to help this transformation.

- Attrill

February 11, 2011 at 12:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What is the "Arab world"? WHat a meaningless phrase.

- WandreyCer

February 11, 2011 at 8:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What is the "Arab world"? WHat a meaningless phrase." Not as meaningless as what you have been writing. The Arab world consists of a couple of dozen countries whose language is Arabic and most of whom belong to the Arab League. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arab_countries_by_population This is grade school material.

- arnon

February 11, 2011 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What is the "Arab world"? WHat a meaningless phrase." What is this question supposed to castigate? That there is no such identity as an "Arab"? Or that people with this identity do not reside in 22+ countries concentrated in one region, speak the same language, follow the same religion, share the same culture, hatreds and superstitions? http://www.adc.org/education/facts-about-arabs-and-the-arab-world/ "What is the Arab World? The Arab World consists of 22 countries in the Middle East and North Africa: Algeria, Bahrain, the Comoros Islands, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Iran and Turkey are not Arab countries and their primary languages are Farsi and Turkish respectively. Arab countries have a rich diversity of ethnic, linguistic, and religious communities. These include Kurds, Armenians, Berbers and others. There are over 300 million Arabs. " ___________________ http://arabnews.com/opinion/article253715.ece?service=print "The Arab world is in a state of unrest nowadays. Egypt is the largest country in the Arab world with 82 million people. If it shakes, then the whole Arab world will shake. It is not time to point fingers at either the West or Israel. Each country has an agenda to benefit its people. Arabs must think what is best for their people, not their leaders. Israel did not open a European bank account for Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali. He did, and where did the money come from? Israel did not hide the billions of dollars in Iraq used by Saddam Hussein while the Iraqis were starving. Saddam did. You can agree or disagree, Israel is a country that has the best education system in the Middle East and a per capita income of more than $28,000. The Arabs and Muslims must get rid of the notion that the whole world is conspiring to destroy them. The Arab world is rich in raw materials, rivers, fertile land, wealth and educated people."

- noga1

February 12, 2011 at 9:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close