America Shouldn't Hijack Egypt's Revolution

Obama must resist the urge to help Egyptian democrats -- unless they demand it.

BY STEVEN A. COOK | MARCH 9, 2011

Let's face it: Hosni Mubarak was a strategic asset to the United States. He ensured access to the Suez Canal, upheld the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, and kept the Islamists down. He also presided over a foul regime that abused its citizens and violated every principle that Americans hold dear. The fact that the United States supported this now-discredited government for three decades is not lost on Egyptians. And it shouldn't be lost on Washington, either, as it attempts to forge a new relationship with Cairo.

Washington has a long wish list for the new Egypt. Despite its baggage-laden history with the country, the United States wants Egypt to be democratic, economically successful, and a reliable ally. It wants Cairo to regain its luster as a regional leader so that it may bring its considerable diplomatic weight to bear as an interlocutor on Arab-Israeli affairs and a counterweight to Iran's regional ambitions. The United States also wants Egypt to serve as a model for political reform, inspiring countries throughout the Arab world toward a more just political order. This ambitious vision is unlikely to be fully realized, but if Egyptians achieve only a portion of their revolutionary aspirations, the Middle East will be a better place.

Policy analysts and democracy-promotion specialists are already racing to formulate a strategy that matches substantial resources to these lofty aims. They want to provide technical assistance to help Egypt develop political parties, impartial electoral laws, judicial independence, and legislative oversight. They also have plans for economic reform, which include U.S. assistance for debt relief and incentives for foreign investment and increased bilateral trade.

Sounds wonderful -- in theory. But it's time to tap the brakes on these grandiose plans, for there are significant drawbacks to a robust American role in post-Mubarak Egypt. If Washington is to realize its goals, it should approach the country's coming transformation with a lighter touch and a certain amount of humility.

The main reason is that Egyptians remain distrustful of Washington and its intentions. Why shouldn't they be? Successive administrations -- Republican and Democratic alike -- supported and benefited from their close ties to Mubarak. Even George W. Bush, who pressed Mubarak hardest to undertake reforms, never penalized him for his stubborn resistance to change. A high-profile approach to Egypt's transition will consequently raise suspicions about Washington's intentions and goals, complicating efforts to develop the kind of relationship with the new Egypt that President Barack Obama's administration wants.

Happily, anti-Americanism was not the main theme of the millions of Egyptians who took to the streets in late January and early February. But Americans should draw no conclusions from the absence of anger directed toward Washington during the 18 heady days of demonstrations. The political dynamics of the new Egypt will encourage the country's leaders to diverge from Washington, if only to establish their nationalist credentials. Prime Minister Essam Sharaf and Foreign Minister Nabil al-Arabi have already signaled that they will split from their predecessors and the United States on the Israeli blockade of Gaza and on Egypt's relationship with Iran.

Even if Washington pledges its total neutrality in Egyptian politics, a bold and public democracy-promotion effort could quickly lapse into support for one party, group, or movement. U.S. officials will be sorely tempted to gravitate toward liberal elements within the revolutionary movement, such as Ayman Nour's al-Ghad party, the newly licensed al-Wasat party, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mohamed ElBaradei, and a host of independent figures. Furthermore, it is hard to believe that Congress will remain neutral should the Obama administration choose to work with the Nasserists and the Muslim Brotherhood, both of which maintain views on Egyptian foreign policy, especially when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, that are inimical to American interests.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

 

Steven A. Cook is the Hasib J. Sabbagh senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. His book on Egyptian politics will be published this fall.

EEORE

4:51 AM ET

March 10, 2011

The problem is that the tail

The problem is that the tail has been wagging the dog.

The more of the AmnDawla leaks that come out, the clearer it will be that far from America being the puppet master, it has been played - by a regime that has been waging war on it's people to extract concessions from the United States.

 

EEORE

4:52 AM ET

March 10, 2011

The problem is that the tail

The problem is that the tail has been wagging the dog.

The more of the AmnDawla leaks that come out, the clearer it will be that far from America being the puppet master, it has been played - by a regime that has been waging war on it's people to extract concessions from the United States.

 

JOELBEN

8:32 AM ET

March 10, 2011

fair

if we let Egypt decide its own future, they wont have anyone to blame if a return to political/economic/social stagnation continues.

On the other hand, we must make sure, and this is what comes with being a superpower, that the new Egypt is a valuable continued ally with the United States. The last thing we want is another regime distancing itself with us.

Egypt has to realize that even though the US supported Mubarak, it is not the US's fault that economic, political, and social problems existed. Egypt has to realize that the U.S is a major player, and it is in their interest, strategically and economically, to remain friends with it.

 

OLIVER CHETTLE

10:30 AM ET

March 10, 2011

Mubarak was not a strategic

Mubarak was not a strategic asset. The way the United States simply loves to have a zoo full of pet thugs to play with has been one of the forces keeping the United States in a region where it has few real interests (Israel is not the 51st state, and the oil-addition is a problem, not an asset), and with which it should never have become entangled.

The Suez Canal is nowhere near the United States, and its existence confers no comparative advantage on the U.S. If anything, the U.S. might be better off if it didn't exist, because it would be more likely to end its oil-habit, and less likely to make foolish military interventions in Asia.

The Egypt-Israel peace treaty does not help the United States. It helps Israel, while incentivising the political elite of the United States to continue its self-harming policy of putting the needs of a small and nasty remote foreign country before the needs of the American people.

Assisting in oppression in the Middle East does not dampen down Islamism, it fuels it. Since the Middle Ages, Islamic fundamentalism has always been a response to failure and humiliation. The current wave of militancy, which is just one of many, can only be ended by political, economic and social success in the Muslim world. Backing tyrants does not help to create the conditions for this. Being seen to back tyrants tends to bring about the redirection of some of the anger away from the tyrants themselves towards their sponsors.

 

RFJK

10:32 AM ET

March 10, 2011

...the smart thing

The US will try to shape outcomes in Egypt like every other foreign actor with interests in the region. That's not a shocking revelation. I also believe there's a more solid understanding of the limits of US influence and power in the ex. branch and foreign policy establishment today than the fantasies rampant in the previous admin.

All things being relevant, Its a question of doing the smart thing as opposed to the right thing. The smart thing for the US is to recognize the positive as well as the negative effects modernity is having on the region, adjusting our behavior accordingly and reforming our policies where necessary.

My guess is the US will happily work with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood as it would with liberals and moderates, no less differently than we did with the dictator Hosni Mubarak.

 

DIDITE

2:46 PM ET

March 10, 2011

Need to rethink "aid" in general

As it becomes clear that aid and development programs are not achieving their objectives and creating a backlash, the delivery mechanism should change.

Technical, military, organizational aid should be available by a grants process, as non-profits and research currently function.

This has the following advantages:

1. Certainty that the people requesting want the aid in the first place

2. A self selection mechanism ensuring the projects receiving aid met a certain standard of utility or excellence

3. Continuing contacts between the granter and grantee reducing the resentment that recipients can develop

4. Evaluation of results to ensure the grants are accomplishing something

5. Pride that the grantees feel in winning a competition

Certainly there are disadvantages, but not delivery mechanism is perfect.

 

SHINDA

3:16 PM ET

March 14, 2011

...otras linguas, por favor ?

Es verdad que los topicos del strategie en l'Africa Norte hagan examinen por las linguas multiple para mejor que comprenden ?

Si o no ?

 

KATHERIN JASON

4:40 PM ET

April 8, 2011

Just because the US didn't

Just because the US didn't choose to keep all the lands it conquered in every war doesn't mean it's on the brink of collapse.Power is not fading, the world is sazky just multi polar and the US is unwilling to act with the same aggressive interventionism to keep its sole super power status as other countries would be.The Suez Canal is nowhere near the United States, and its existence confers no comparative advantage on the U.S. If anything, the U.S. might be better off if it didn't exist, because it sazky would be more likely to end its oil-habit, and less likely to make foolish military interventions in Asia.The Egypt-Israel peace treaty does not help the United States. It helps Israel, while incentivising the political elite of the United States to continue its self-harming policy of putting the needs of a small and nasty remote foreign country before the needs of the American people.The US will try to sazky shape outcomes in Egypt like every other foreign actor with interests in the region. That's not a shocking revelation. I also believe there's a more solid understanding of the limits of US influence and power in the ex. branch and foreign policy establishment today than the fantasies rampant in the previous admin.All things being relevant, Its a question of doing the smart thing as opposed to the right thing. The smart thing for the US is to recognize the positive as well as the negative effects modernity is having on the region, adjusting our behavior accordingly and reforming our policies where necessary.