Two weeks after anti-government protests started in Egypt, the Obama Administration is fine tuning its "realpolitik'" approach in Egypt. I still have in memory a very poignant statement by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs who insisted a few days into the crisis that Mubarak must leave power “now”. Later on Obama said to Fox News on February 6, 2011, that he wants a representative government in Egypt and added the transition must be immediate and "orderly". This is the new line of the adminstration.
It is clear that this new tag line shows that Obama is adopting a new strategy. However it is not clear if it is the result of a straight forward analysis or just proof of Obama’s hesitation. To be fair, nobody in the administration or in the world for that matter foresaw what we now call the “Egyptian revolution”. Who could have thought otherwise? After 30 years in power with endless US financial and political support, it would have been insane to think otherwise. In Sub-Sahara Africa, Mobutu fall after more than 30 years in power was largely orchestrated by the west. His fall was predicted after the fall of the Berlin wall as the US cut most of the political and financial support that fuel Mobutu’s eccentric life style.
The effect of surprise can explain how the Obama administration position changed almost daily as write in the Guardian Ewen Mac Askill in the Guardian. Here is an excerpt: “The Obama administration's immediate response was to back the president, Hosni Mubarak, to the dismay of the protesters. Joe Biden, the vice-president, insisted on 27 January that Mubarak was not a dictator.
By last Tuesday that position was reversed. Obama abandoned Mubarak an hour after the Egyptian president said he would remain in office until September, saying it would be better if the transition process began "now". That was the message on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
On Saturday, the US envoy to Egypt, Frank Wisner, told a defence conference in Munich that Mubarak should be allowed to stay in office during the transition process: "I believe that President Mubarak's continued leadership is critical." The US state department distanced itself from this, saying Wisner was speaking on his own behalf.”
For some, it is the sign of Obama realpolitik and not just dubious planning and tergiversations. Without doubt, the administration wanted and still wants a “stable Egypt”. The appointment of a vice president might have been a suggestion by the Obama administration of an important step towards Mubarak’s ejection as the people clearly disapproved his leadership. On that basis it appears that the administration might have wanted to get rid of Mubarak while keeping the military establishment. This is not in line with the usual “promotion of democratic principles” rhetoric that we witnessed under the Bush administration.
By last Tuesday that position was reversed. Obama abandoned Mubarak an hour after the Egyptian president said he would remain in office until September, saying it would be better if the transition process began "now". That was the message on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
On Saturday, the US envoy to Egypt, Frank Wisner, told a defence conference in Munich that Mubarak should be allowed to stay in office during the transition process: "I believe that President Mubarak's continued leadership is critical." The US state department distanced itself from this, saying Wisner was speaking on his own behalf.”
For some, it is the sign of Obama realpolitik and not just dubious planning and tergiversations. Without doubt, the administration wanted and still wants a “stable Egypt”. The appointment of a vice president might have been a suggestion by the Obama administration of an important step towards Mubarak’s ejection as the people clearly disapproved his leadership. On that basis it appears that the administration might have wanted to get rid of Mubarak while keeping the military establishment. This is not in line with the usual “promotion of democratic principles” rhetoric that we witnessed under the Bush administration.
Ross Douthat of the New York Times explains that Oboma could have follow the democratic ideal path if he had on the ground a strong and reliable partner in the government. He points out that ElBaradei is unreliable and largely relies on his grassroot connections, the Muslim Brotherhood is dangerous and the crowd on the street is disorganized. Therefore Obama didn’t have the option, or shall I say the luxury to go down the route of a swift democratic change in Egypt. One of the reasons of Obama “indecisiveness” might lay in what Egypt represents for the US government. Basically, this is the only ally that the US has in the middle East who allows the government to maintain a level of leverage on all regional actors since the signing of the 1978 Camp David Accords under Jimmy Carter, a framework for peace that provided for Israel’s phased withdrawal from the Sinai in return for full diplomatic ties with Egypt. This ultimately led to a comprehensive peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in 1979.
In reality, Obama’s hesitation stems from the administration lack of preparation due to the unexpected nature of the uprising. Despite all I’ve said above, it is not clear why the administration hesitated so much. With 1,5 billion dollar annual aid from the US taxpayer to Egypt, the US could have chosen to support a complete change in Egypt, but instead, Obama opted for the support of American interests.
Read more about Egypt history
In reality, Obama’s hesitation stems from the administration lack of preparation due to the unexpected nature of the uprising. Despite all I’ve said above, it is not clear why the administration hesitated so much. With 1,5 billion dollar annual aid from the US taxpayer to Egypt, the US could have chosen to support a complete change in Egypt, but instead, Obama opted for the support of American interests.
Read more about Egypt history
No comments:
Post a Comment