Two Perspectives on Egypt
Leon Wieseltier has posted a piece on the New Republic site that deserves attention. Entitled American Liberals and the Streets of Cairo, it begins with a sober assessment of the recent developments in Egypt – which, Wieseltier readily concedes, could end in tears. More interesting is his claims that “the Obama administration, and American liberals more generally, have been caught intellectually unprepared for this crisis.“ He understands why Obama and his minions are, for all practical purposes, noncommittal. There is, as he puts it, “nothing wrong with crisis management in a crisis.” The problem, however, is that Robert Gibbs’ announcement that “the United States will continue to stand up for the rights of the Egyptian people” rings hollow.
The problem that the Obama administration now confronts is precisely that it has not been a cornerstone of American policy toward Egypt to stand up for the rights of the Egyptian people. It has preferred cronyism with the regime occasionally punctuated by some stirring remarks. What we are witnessing, in the confusion and the dread of the administration, are the consequences of its demotion of democratization as one of the central purposes of American foreign policy, particularly toward the Muslim world. There were two reasons for the new liberal diffidence about human rights. The first was the Bush doctrine, the second was the Obama doctrine. The wholesale repudiation of Bush’s foreign policy included the rejection of anything resembling his “freedom agenda,” which looked mainly like an excuse for war. But whatever one’s views of the Iraq war, it really does not seem too much to ask of American liberals that they think a little less crudely about democratization—not only about its moral significance but also about its strategic significance. One of the early lessons of the rebellion against Mubarak is that American support for democratic dissidents is indeed a strategic matter, and that the absence of such American support can lead to a strategic disaster. Such are the wages of realism. It is a common error that prudence is thought about the short-term; the proper temporal horizon for prudential thinking is distant and long. Realism does not equip one for an adequate appreciation of the historical force of the democratic longing. In this sense, realism is singularly unrealistic. It seems smart only as long as the dictators remain undisturbed by their people, and then suddenly it seems incredibly stupid.
Where the Obama administration erred was in “replacing the freedom agenda with an acceptance agenda,” in adopting a multiculturalist perspective. In preparing his Cairo speech, Obama “rightly sensed that an emphasis upon democratization was a critical emphasis—a castigation of the existing dispensations in countries ruled by autocracies and authoritarianisms, and he did not come to castigate. He came in friendship, to ‘restore America’s standing.’ He sought to do so with an embrace of differences, an affirmation of religions, a celebration of civilizations. As a matter of principle, such assertions of respect are right and good. But what if the positive tone misses the point—not about the dignity of other peoples, but about their actual circumstances? Of what use is happy talk to unhappy people? Do societies desperately in need of secularization and its blandishments really need the American president to cite their Scripture to them?” Wieseltier is appalled – and I think, rightly so – that Obama made “democratization seem like an ‘imposition,’ with its imperialist implications,” and conflated “it with military invasion. “ It seems to me that his critique of what passes as realism is particularly apt. How realistic can it be in the long run to ignore justice altogether?
The second piece that deserves attention was written by Bret Stephens and appears in today’s Wall Street Journal. Entitled On Being Hosni Mubarak, it suggests that we should not underestimate the President of Egypt. He asks his readers to put themselves in Mubarak’s shoes. Then, he addresses them. “You gambled,” he observes, “that you could ride out the protests and hang on.” It is, he thinks, “a pretty good gamble.”
Like everyone else, you've been "listening" to Egyptians marching through the streets and telling you it's time to go. That's an opinion they'll likely revise after a few more neighborhoods in Cairo and Alexandria are ransacked, looted and torched by gangs of hooligans.
But you haven't just been listening to the demonstrators. You've also been watching them—the way they dress, the way they shave. On Sunday, in Tahrir Square, you could tell right away that most were from the Muslim Brotherhood, though they were taking care not to chant the usual Islamic slogans. And Western liberals want you to relinquish power to them?
Stephens’ bet is that Mubarak knows what he is doing – that he expects a certain sobriety to set in among “the middle-class demonstrators, the secular professionals and minor businessmen” who seem to be the greatest threat but are really Mubarak’s “ace in the hole.” As Cairo begins to look like Baghdad in 2006, the middle class will back off. “No wonder the mood among Cairo's shopkeepers, many of whom supported the initial demonstrations, is turning sharply in your favor. Those shopkeepers will soon be joined by housewives who want to feel safe in the streets; and tourism workers who want Egypt to remain a safe destination, and everyone else with a stake in a stable environment.” At that point, Mubarak and the army can ride to the rescue.
I cannot say that I am certain that Stephens is right. But it is striking that Mubarak has not fled. The Shah of Iran lost his nerve and his throne. In Tunisia, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled, and he is now history. As long as the army remains loyal to Mubarak, he can afford to wait. Time is, as Stephens asserts, on his side.
It is perfectly possible that the uprising in Cairo in 2011 will more nearly resemble that in Paris in 1968 than that in Teheran in 1979.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Two Perspectives on Egypt
Perhaps a contingent of military in civilian cloths, terrorizing the neighborhoods and raping housewives could be Mubarak's solution. Then, once the clamor for order crescendos, voila, the re-dressed military appears to save the people.
I know that this is cynical.. but, I have lived in Arab, Latin American and Asian countries, and this thinking is not at all uncommon among tyrants.
Edited on Feb 1, 2011 at 12:33pmDec '10
Re: Two Perspectives on Egypt
With Mubarak's announcement that he will not run in the next election, I suspect things might start settling down. Somewhat.
I am inclined to agree with Stephens.
I am not inclined to agree with Wieseltier, that, “...the Obama administration, and American liberals more generally, have been caught intellectually unprepared for this crisis.“ Obama's friend and financier, Jodie Evans, as well as his friends William Ayers and Bernadine Dorn (sp?), were all in Cairo, not long ago, in association with the flotilla nonsense. They received cooperation from the Administration in pressuring Mubarak to allow them to lead public demonstrations, including with members of the MB. There have been reports (sorry, no link handy) that imams in mosques associated with the MB declared last Friday as a "Day of Rage". Translations in and out of English are tricky; however, I recognized that phrase, from back around 1970. I was just a kid, but my brother wore an SDS button and I remember that phrase from the Weathermen, before they became the Weather Underground. Coincidence? Probably.
However, there was no good purpose for Evans, Ayers, and Dorn to be in Egypt, mobilizing protests; especially not with Administration cooperation. Intellectually unprepared?
Jul '10
Re: Two Perspectives on Egypt
With all due respect, Professor, why is it America's obligation to "...stand up for the rights of the Egyptian people."?
What is it in the charter of our republic that requires us - or empowers us - to poke our nose into the domestic political arrangements of every country on the globe?
Re: Two Perspectives on Egypt
CJRun: Obama's friend and financier, Jodie Evans, as well as his friends William Ayers and Bernadine Dorn (sp?), were all in Cairo, not long ago, in association with the flotilla nonsense. They received cooperation from the Administration in pressuring Mubarak to allow them to lead public demonstrations, including with members of the MB. There have been reports (sorry, no link handy) that imams in mosques associated with the MB declared last Friday as a "Day of Rage". Translations in and out of English are tricky; however, I recognized that phrase, from back around 1970. I was just a kid, but my brother wore an SDS button and I remember that phrase from the Weathermen, before they became the Weather Underground. Coincidence? Probably.
However, there was no good purpose for Evans, Ayers, and Dorn to be in Egypt, mobilizing protests; especially not with Administration cooperation. Intellectually unprepared? · Feb 1 at 1:39pm
Very interesting. If you come up with a link, please post it.
Re: Two Perspectives on Egypt
Kenneth: With all due respect, Professor, why is it America's obligation to "...stand up for the rights of the Egyptian people."?
What is it in the charter of our republic that requires us - or empowers us - to poke our nose into the domestic political arrangements of every country on the globe? · Feb 1 at 2:51pm
I think that it would be Wieseltier's argument is that self-interest dictates our standing for what is decent and right. He is not arguing that we should intervene militarily nor that we should spurn all connection with insalubrious regimes -- only that it should be well-known that we favor and encourage the spread of liberal democracy. That was our policy during the Cold War, and we followed it with some vigor in the Reagan years to good effect (e.g, the Phillipines and Indonesia). I would add that by and large we cannot help ourselves. We are put off by tyranny (and rightly so), and we find it easier to get along with countries organized more or less as we are. The realist position tends to be cynical, and it engenders contempt for us and hatred that we could avoid.
Dec '10
Re: Two Perspectives on Egypt
Well, I'm a scientist, not a historian, nor a journalist. I skimmed it, somewhere, days ago. I can't find a definitive, primary source, but this should document that that phrase appeared five days ago.
I could try to track down that same "Days of Rage" phrase to around 1970, but to me it was current events. I assume it is in the collective memory of those that remember that time. I still have my older brother's jewelry box from his high school years, as he moved on. I have his SDS button. I remember having nightmares and being unable to sleep, after the Manson Family murders. I only learned in the past few years that Bernadine Dorn cheered the Manson Family, at the time, but I remember the Weathermen. Anybody old enough, remembers those people, whatever they may think of them. The Weathermen phrase, "Days of Rage", came from around that horrible time. Kids in pjs didn't want Days of Rage, because that was the opposite of what kids in pjs wanted.
You're the history professor, Dr. Rahe. You track that one down!
Jul '10
Re: Two Perspectives on Egypt
Paul A. Rahe
Kenneth:
I think that it would be Wieseltier's argument is that self-interest dictates our standing for what is decent and right. He is not arguing that we should intervene militarily nor that we should spurn all connection with insalubrious regimes -- only that it should be well-known that we favor and encourage the spread of liberal democracy. That was our policy during the Cold War, and we followed it with some vigor in the Reagan years to good effect (e.g, the Phillipines and Indonesia). I would add that by and large we cannot help ourselves. We are put off by tyranny (and rightly so), and we find it easier to get along with countries organized more or less as we are. The realist position tends to be cynical, and it engenders contempt for us and hatred that we could avoid. · Feb 1 at 3:47pm
Nice answer. Gives me something to ponder.
Re: Two Perspectives on Egypt
Our chief aim, Kenneth, in conducting foreign policy should be self-preservation and the protection of our interests. That means that we should attempt to shape our external political environment, largely by helping our friends and harming our enemies. It is in the nature of things that our closest foreign friends will be liberal democracies and that tyrannies will find us intolerable. Our very example is to them a reproach.
Of course, it is not in our power to fully control that external political environment. We need to temper idealism with powerful dose of prudence. As you can see from my earlier posts, I am not starry-eyed about the near-term prospects for democracy in Egypt. But that does not alter the direction in which, I believe, we should encourage them to move. (I am more sanguine about Tunisia).
I would say something similar about China and Iran. If they do not drift in our direction, there will, I fear, be hell to pay. Stark regime differences breed hatred, and the Chinese and the Iranian leaders seem hell-bent on imperial expansion.
Dec '10
Re: Two Perspectives on Egypt
The Chinese are sowing the seeds of the destruction of their system with their economic growth. At some point, when people have enough personal wealth to be protective of, they start to distrust and resent a government that can take it from them capriciously.
The Iranians, too, are sowing the seeds of the destruction of their system, in their case by their economic mismanagement. Young Iranians can see their future slipping away, being squandered by their leaders. Eventually they will realize that, as an Egyptian protester's placard said, "it's better to die for something than live for nothing."