Thursday, September 07, 2006
Glain: A Failing Egypt Policy?
Stephen Glain of Newsweek International reports from Egypt that the U.S. strategy of apparently unconditionally backing president Mubarak may in fact hasten the regime's demise:
"The United States gets little in return for subsidizing Mubarak’s brutality. True, Egypt has provided tactical assistance—“rendering” suspected terrorists for interrogation, for example, or negotiating the release of journalists held hostage in Gaza. But Mubarak has studiously avoided playing a constructive role on the issues of overriding, strategic importance to the United States: ending Israeli-Palestinian violence and helping to pre-empt a conflagration over Iranian nuclear ambitions. As the leader of what is widely regarded as the most influential Arab state, Mubarak has chosen to insulate himself amid Arab-world equivocation. Are these the results that Bush, the most unilateral of U.S. leaders, hoped to achieve? Either way, the Middle East is poorer for it.
"And what happens at the end of Mubarak’s term? Though widely tipped as his successor, Gamal has earned no power base of his own and will most likely flee Egypt should his father die suddenly or become incapacitated. Odds are better that Mubarak will transfer power to a military man in exchange for his own and his family’s protection, to spare them the fate that Anwar Sadat meted out to Gamal Abdel Nasser’s inner circle after the latter’s death in 1970."
"Or, Mubarak could be succeeded in free and fair elections by Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, widely considered the most capable political organization in the Arab world today, with an unparalleled network of patronage and community services. Absent secular competition, the Brotherhood (which is banned as a party but fields candidates as independents) has enlarged its bloc in Parliament to 88 seats, making it the largest opposition group in Egypt. A Brotherhood victory in Egypt would shake an already tremulous Middle East. It would complete the transition of political Islam from the fringes of power to its epicenter, with unknown consequences. And absent some tough love from Cairo’s “friends” in the White House, it just might happen."
It seems like shades of the Philippines under Marcos--except we have no Corazon Aquino waiting in the wings to help minimize the fallout from when the regime comes down.
Our interests require us to work with authoritarian governments--but we should encourage "smart authoritarians" who understand the need for evolutionary reform and a stable succession. To date, this appears to be what is happening in places like Azerbaijan, where there is a chance that over time a kind of technocratic authoritarianism that leads to rule of law and economic growth along the East Asian model may emerge. This doesn't seem to be happening in Cairo.
"The United States gets little in return for subsidizing Mubarak’s brutality. True, Egypt has provided tactical assistance—“rendering” suspected terrorists for interrogation, for example, or negotiating the release of journalists held hostage in Gaza. But Mubarak has studiously avoided playing a constructive role on the issues of overriding, strategic importance to the United States: ending Israeli-Palestinian violence and helping to pre-empt a conflagration over Iranian nuclear ambitions. As the leader of what is widely regarded as the most influential Arab state, Mubarak has chosen to insulate himself amid Arab-world equivocation. Are these the results that Bush, the most unilateral of U.S. leaders, hoped to achieve? Either way, the Middle East is poorer for it.
"And what happens at the end of Mubarak’s term? Though widely tipped as his successor, Gamal has earned no power base of his own and will most likely flee Egypt should his father die suddenly or become incapacitated. Odds are better that Mubarak will transfer power to a military man in exchange for his own and his family’s protection, to spare them the fate that Anwar Sadat meted out to Gamal Abdel Nasser’s inner circle after the latter’s death in 1970."
"Or, Mubarak could be succeeded in free and fair elections by Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, widely considered the most capable political organization in the Arab world today, with an unparalleled network of patronage and community services. Absent secular competition, the Brotherhood (which is banned as a party but fields candidates as independents) has enlarged its bloc in Parliament to 88 seats, making it the largest opposition group in Egypt. A Brotherhood victory in Egypt would shake an already tremulous Middle East. It would complete the transition of political Islam from the fringes of power to its epicenter, with unknown consequences. And absent some tough love from Cairo’s “friends” in the White House, it just might happen."
It seems like shades of the Philippines under Marcos--except we have no Corazon Aquino waiting in the wings to help minimize the fallout from when the regime comes down.
Our interests require us to work with authoritarian governments--but we should encourage "smart authoritarians" who understand the need for evolutionary reform and a stable succession. To date, this appears to be what is happening in places like Azerbaijan, where there is a chance that over time a kind of technocratic authoritarianism that leads to rule of law and economic growth along the East Asian model may emerge. This doesn't seem to be happening in Cairo.
Comments:
<< Home
It seems the automatic assumption is that the Brotherhood can't be dealt with, that if they come to power this is the worst possible scenario. But it seems to me, not being an Egypt expert myself, but what I've read from time to time, that there is a pragmatic wing of the Brotherhood, they wouldn't be US allies or friends, certainly, but you could do business with them. Although I guess that was said about Hamas too.
# posted by 
: 8:17 AM
: 8:17 AM
If you cannot do business with Islamic Iran you have snow ball's chance in hell of doing business with MB.
From a Realist point of view Bush is doing all he can in Egypt: spending money and buying patronage; business as usual.
You cannot blame Bush: his policy of democratization in Egypt was in contradiction to US security needs so he dropped it.
From a Realist point of view Bush is doing all he can in Egypt: spending money and buying patronage; business as usual.
You cannot blame Bush: his policy of democratization in Egypt was in contradiction to US security needs so he dropped it.
# posted by : 9:05 AM
: 9:05 AM
Anonymous 9:05:
There is a second realist approach--cutting deals. This requires having contacts with the MB and finding out what they are prepared to accept. It also requires US adjusting what it expects out of Egypt. MB will not keep what is largely a token peace treaty with Israel. But does that mean MB government would automatically go to war with Israel? Cold peace or cold war could be livable options.
There is a second realist approach--cutting deals. This requires having contacts with the MB and finding out what they are prepared to accept. It also requires US adjusting what it expects out of Egypt. MB will not keep what is largely a token peace treaty with Israel. But does that mean MB government would automatically go to war with Israel? Cold peace or cold war could be livable options.
# posted by : 3:04 PM
: 3:04 PM
Anonymous 3:04 PM
I am not in disagreement.
My point was that the President's policies can be construed, at times but not always, to be realistic.
I am not advocating a no cotact policy with MB just that it will be pricky to work with them.
I doubt that they will go to war with Israel but they might, under certain circumstances, break diplomatic relations with Israel.
I am not in disagreement.
My point was that the President's policies can be construed, at times but not always, to be realistic.
I am not advocating a no cotact policy with MB just that it will be pricky to work with them.
I doubt that they will go to war with Israel but they might, under certain circumstances, break diplomatic relations with Israel.
# posted by : 6:56 AM
: 6:56 AM
So we are back to a fundamental red line question: is Egypt maintaining diplomatic relations with Israel a basic requirement we will insist of any political party or movement in Egypt as a price for allowing the democratic process to work its way through, or is maintaining the treaty with Israel worth supporting non-democratic governments? As long as Bush and Co. think you can have both democracy and treaty with Israel, we can't move forward.
# posted by : 8:06 AM
: 8:06 AM
US is paying Egypt $ 6 billion a year to maintain the diplomatic relations with Israel.
So US does have leverage that can be divorced from who rules Egypt.
So US does have leverage that can be divorced from who rules Egypt.
# posted by : 8:39 AM
: 8:39 AM
Yes, but would US keep paying if Egypt broke relations but otherwise kept the peace?
# posted by : 9:23 AM
: 9:23 AM
I do not know.
Money buys influence and I would think that Israel would want US to keep spending money so that US at least have some leverage on a MB government.
But this is a judgement call and will have to depend on the situation on the ground when and if diplomatic relations are broken.
Money buys influence and I would think that Israel would want US to keep spending money so that US at least have some leverage on a MB government.
But this is a judgement call and will have to depend on the situation on the ground when and if diplomatic relations are broken.
# posted by : 10:44 AM
: 10:44 AM
Our interests require us to work with authoritarian governments--but we should encourage "smart authoritarians" who understand the need for evolutionary reform and a stable succession. To date, this appears to be what is happening in places like Azerbaijan, where there is a chance that over time a kind of technocratic authoritarianism that leads to rule of law and economic growth along the East Asian model may emerge. This doesn't seem to be happening in Cairo.
Boy, is that ever true.
However, not only is there no Corazon Aquino in the wings, I don't see any credible hope of a secular soft landing in Egypt.
You've already had a chance to look at a more detailed example of my feelings, but as I see it, our choices are to negotiate/get used to the Muslim Brotherhood *now* - while they are still vulnerable to Mubarak, while we talking with them is clearly a choice rather than a neccesity, and therefore gain some credibility and *influence* - and help set the stage for a peaceful transition and a milder regime outcome -
or else, stand back and talk smack from the sidelines, and have 1979 come out like it did instead of like, say, Kyrgystan.
Jordan W. '02
Boy, is that ever true.
However, not only is there no Corazon Aquino in the wings, I don't see any credible hope of a secular soft landing in Egypt.
You've already had a chance to look at a more detailed example of my feelings, but as I see it, our choices are to negotiate/get used to the Muslim Brotherhood *now* - while they are still vulnerable to Mubarak, while we talking with them is clearly a choice rather than a neccesity, and therefore gain some credibility and *influence* - and help set the stage for a peaceful transition and a milder regime outcome -
or else, stand back and talk smack from the sidelines, and have 1979 come out like it did instead of like, say, Kyrgystan.
Jordan W. '02
# posted by : 12:59 PM
: 12:59 PM
Jordan W. '02
Correct, talk to MB if you can.
Is it possible?
Do they consider US against Islam?
What is their view?
Correct, talk to MB if you can.
Is it possible?
Do they consider US against Islam?
What is their view?
# posted by : 2:49 PM
: 2:49 PM
I've heard from some people who have had talks with Muslim Brotherhood leadership that some sort of modus vivendi with the US could be found--pragmatic and businesslike, not friendly, certainly. And domestically they wouldn't espouse secular liberalism, that is very true.
I don't know if there is any sort of quiet dialogue underway or not--so at least we aren't taken unawares as we were in 1979.
I don't know if there is any sort of quiet dialogue underway or not--so at least we aren't taken unawares as we were in 1979.
# posted by : 3:16 PM
: 3:16 PM
anonymous,
I am currently trying to write an article on this, and I have limited resources and contacts.
If you've studied this, or if any of your friends have written or published anything, or if you just know of other institutions that have, I would be permanently grateful if you could provide some names or links in this blog.
I am currently trying to write an article on this, and I have limited resources and contacts.
If you've studied this, or if any of your friends have written or published anything, or if you just know of other institutions that have, I would be permanently grateful if you could provide some names or links in this blog.
# posted by : 5:54 PM
: 5:54 PM
Glain--the author of this piece--is a good source, given his knowledge of the region. Giles Kepel, obviously. Alexis Debat, who just moved to the Nixon Center, also has good contacts.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 7:17 AM
: 7:17 AM << Home
