(1/30/2011, 8 a.m. Los Alamitos time, 6 p.m. Cairo time) We may be witnessing the biggest news story since the fall of the Soviet Union. How it will end is anybody’s guess.
Perhaps I’m a bit more connected to the story because 48 weeks ago I was waking up in Cairo. Egypt was in worse shape than I’d expected.
As our bus drove along a canal/drainage ditch/water supply(?) with dead animals floating in it, our government-approved tour guide tried to convince us that Egypt was not a third-world country. As our bus’s machine-gun toting guard sat next to her.
This morning, I turned to the web rather than pick up yesterday’s news, which is still sitting in it’s orange plastic bag on my driveway, or even today’s news from the talking heads on the networks.
The good news was that Egyptian protesters were working side by side with the Egyptian Army in an small attempt to restore order. The bad news was two Egyptian Air Force jets buzzing protesters along the Nile as dusk approached, while our President was busy dispatching our Secretary of State to deal with an urgent crisis in. . . Haiti!
Then a column in Israel’s “most influential daily newspaper,” Haaretz, by editor at large Aluf Benn caught my eye: “Obama will go down in history asthe president who lost Egypt:”
Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as “the president who lost Iran,” which during his term went from being a major strategic ally of the United States to being the revolutionary Islamic Republic. Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who “lost” Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America’s alliances in the Middle East crumbled.
The superficial circumstances are similar. In both cases, a United States in financial crisis and after failed wars loses global influence under a leftist president whose good intentions are interpreted abroad as expressions of weakness. The results are reflected in the fall of regimes that were dependent on their relationship with Washington for survival, or in a change in their orientation, as with Ankara.
America’s general weakness clearly affects its friends. But unlike Carter, who preached human rights even when it hurt allies, Obama sat on the fence and exercised caution. He neither embraced despised leaders nor evangelized for political freedom, for fear of undermining stability.
Obama began his presidency with trips to Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and in speeches in Ankara and Cairo tried to forge new ties between the United States and the Muslim world. His message to Muslims was “I am one of you,” and he backed it by quoting from the Koran. President Hosni Mubarak did not join him on the stage at Cairo University, and Obama did not mention his host. But he did not imitate his hated predecessor, President George W. Bush, with blunt calls for democracy and freedom.
Obama apparently believed the main problem of the Middle East was the Israeli occupation, and focused his policy on demanding the suspension of construction in the settlements and on the abortive attempt to renew the peace talks. That failure led him to back off from the peace process in favor of concentrating on heading off an Israeli-Iranian war.
Americans debated constantly the question of whether Obama cut his policy to fit the circumstances or aimed at the wrong targets. The absence of human rights issues from U.S. policy vis-a-vis Arab states drew harsh criticism; he was accused of ignoring the zeitgeist and clinging to old, rotten leaders. In the past few months many opinion pieces have appeared in the Western press asserting that the days of Mubarak’s regime are numbered and calling on Obama to reach out to the opposition in Egypt. There was a sense that the U.S. foreign policy establishment was shaking off its long-term protege in Cairo, while the administration lagged behind the columnists and commentators.
The administration faced a dilemma. One can guess that Obama himself identified with the demonstrators, not the aging dictator. But a superpower isn’t the civil rights movement. If it abandons its allies the moment they flounder, who would trust it tomorrow? That’s why Obama rallied to Mubarak’s side until Friday, when the force of the protests bested his regime.
The street revolts in Tunisia and Egypt showed that the United States can do very little to save its friends from the wrath of their citizens. Now Obama will come under fire for not getting close to the Egyptian opposition leaders soon enough and not demanding that Mubarak release his opponents from jail. [bolding mine]
This from an Israeli newspaper noted for being left of center!
Certainly, President Obama inherited a plate full of extremely challenging problems that he did not create. I’m not sure anyone else could have done any better, although I personally finally voted for the older but more experienced candidate in 2008.
Advertisement:
Where it all ends, nobody really knows. Columnist Benn seems to be hoping for the best case scenario:
It cannot be assumed that Mubarak’s successors will be clones of Iran’s leaders, bent on pursuing a radical anti-American policy. Perhaps they will emulate Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who navigates among the blocs and superpowers without giving up his country’s membership in NATO and its defense ties with the United States.
Erdogan obtained a good deal for Turkey, which benefits from political stability and economic growth without being in anyone’s pocket. It could work for Egypt, too.
Whatever comes next, I get a feeling we’re watching history in the making.
Check back later today for our “Sunday Sermon” on “Why do bad things happen to good people,” taken from a Middle Eastern story about 4,000 years old.
Click here for the latest International News from Haaretz.
Click here for the latest AP stories on events in Egypt.
As always, your insights and comments, diplomatically expressed in “family friendly” language, are strongly encouraged, and post instantly.
Related posts:
