The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

America’s missed opportunity in Egypt

There’s no reason to believe that the uprising will bring radical Islamists to power – so why isn’t

By Osama Diab Published 30 January 2011 18:17

Hosni Mubarak's days are numbered as the president of Egypt, and possibly as a living human being. The 80 million people of Egypt are not going anywhere; the struggle for democracy and fight for a better life goes on. After Mubarak is gone, the world will have to deal with the reaction of thousands of protesters who were injured, killed, arrested, tortured on the street while the leaders of the international community were issuing empty, meaningless statements and taking no action except to support this ailing regime in its fight against its own people.

The hundreds of thousands of Egyptians who have taken to the streets since 25 January are not political activists or full-time dissidents. They are also not the Islamists who have long been portrayed by the media as Egypt's largest opposition and the only real threat to the regime. It was thought that any change in Egypt would automatically bring to power radical Islamists whose masterplan is believed to be the application of sharia (Islamic law) and the destruction of Israel. This is why the US government has always given unconditional support to the authoritarian regime of Mubarak and his party.

The protesters who took to the streets to challenge the country's brutal security forces did not risk their lives to apply shariaa or wipe Israel off the map. I should also point out that the protesters also had no interest in stoning adulterers to death. Their demands were for a job with a decent income, an end to the 30-year-long emergency rule, safe roads and public transportation, fair elections and a police force whose role is to protect rather than intimidate them.

Despite an endless number of international human rights reports condemning Egypt and giving the country a very poor ranking in the various global freedom and transparency indices, Joe Biden, the US vice-president, unashamedly refused to describe Mubarak as a dictator and said he should not step down . President Barack Obama himself described the Egyptian dictator as a "friend of the US" and a "force of stability in the region".

The Obama administration, especially Hillary Clinton, keeps using the word "reform" instead of "change" when commenting on the situation in Egypt. What the Americans fail to understand is that Egyptians are willing now to sacrifice their lives for change and don't want reform; they simply want Mubarak to step down and they want his regime to remove itself. Law and order will not be restored until this happens.

The problem is that international and domestic media reports about Egyptian politics have always been coated with a great deal of cynicism. The people of Egypt have for far too long been denied basic democratic rights based on dangerous misconceptions promoted by the regime itself. First, that free and fair elections would lead to a sweeping victory of the Muslim Brotherhood and hence would lead to instability in the region and a new threat to Israel. And that the consequences of democracy in Egypt would also involve the "ethnic cleansing" of the country's Coptic Christian minority and the introduction of stoning and and other barbaric punishments.

But let's take a look at the role of the main "religio-political" groups in the 25 January protest and following protests. Many Salafist groups have denounced the uprising. The Muslim Brotherhood was until the last minute reluctant to participate in the protest movement. Even the Coptic Church urged its followers not to participate in Tuesday's protests.

Nonetheless, it was still the country's biggest protest since the 18 January 1977 upheaval – despite the absence of Egypt's main religious groups and institutes. During the protests, it is worth noting, no one chanted "Death to adulterers" or "Down with Israel". There were no Qurans or crosses on display – instead, protesters were peacefully chanting "Freedom, freedom" and waving the Egyptian flag.

For far too long, people inside and outside of Egypt have turned a blind eye to the regime's human rights violations due to their fear of the country's Islamists and, in particular, the Muslim Brotherhood.

The misconception that Islamists are waiting in line to seize power was based on the Brotherhood winning 88 seats (20 per cent) in the 2005 parliamentary elections. But many observers believe this number was carefully decided by the Mubarak regime itself to send a message to western superpowers about the supposed threat from Islamists – in order to resist the Bush administration's pressure to democratise the country further.

The number was big enough to scare everyone they wanted to scare, but still not big enough for the Brothers to drive any real change in Egyptian politics. Interestingly, the regime "allocated" no seats at all for the Muslim Brotherhood in the 2010 elections, by which time US pressure – under Obama – had reduced.

It's true that Egypt has seen growing conservatism and even extremism during the past three decades, in what has been described as a soft Islamic revolution. However, this growing trend has found a fertile ground to grow in the regime's oppressive environment and systematic policies of impoverishing its people, such as its determined refusal to enforce a fair minimum wage despite a court ruling to that effect.

It seems, however, that the wave of Islamophobia, or in this case "Islamistphobia", that hit the world after the September 11 attacks drove many to turn a blind eye to their ideals of freedom, liberty and human rights, including President Obama, who has always raised the banner of change and liberty but has been a great deal softer with the 82-year-old Egyptian despot than his predecessor.

If Washington continues to support "reform" rather than "change" in Egypt, it gives way to Islamists to present themselves as the only saviour to the Egyptian people, and risks having a confrontational, radical Islamist regime and a populace full of bitterness towards a nation, the United States, that refused to support the struggle for basic human rights, and chose instead to support a dictator who committed countless crimes against his own people.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Muslim Brotherhood Egypt human rights Barack Obama democracy

More from Osama Diab

View the discussion thread.

16 comments

Mon, 2011-01-31 21:34 — Bill Fraser (not verified)

Stuart Eels.

Agree, Tony Blair's call on Sky news this morning for managed change in Egypt was damned creepy to listen too...

So, I would not be too surprised if the nutters in London and Washington are making plans... as it seems as far as they are concerned, what the ordinary Egyptian wants his or her country counts for nothing!

Mon, 2011-01-31 23:58 — Nixon is Lord (not verified)

With a population spiraling out of any hope of being fed from its own land, Egypt will only continue to become more and more miserable. Then its people will blame the rest of the world for its problems and seek to unload its surplus population on richer countries.

Sun, 2011-01-30 18:57 — Daniele1

Thank you for a good analysis of the situation.
But I am more cynical than the author. i believe that the US administrations as well as other western democracies couldn't care less about the spread of democracy AT ALL across the world. Democracy is for home consumption alone and their steady support for so many dictators around the world is an indication of the hypocrisy and immorality of the West towards other nations.
Communism used to be the big threat which had to be controlled by right wing dictators even if that meant the torture and murder of their own people like in Chile or Argentina in the 70's. Now the bogeyman is Islamism. But Islamism IS mostly the doing of the West. By supporting tyrants, the West has discredited the meaning of true democracy and many victims of these tyrants no longer believe in democracy and prefer to turn to religion in desperation.
Islamism and terrorism, like communism before, are monsters created by the West. We've done it in Iran and in Iraq. Let's hope the Egyptians do not turn to religion in their despair but that their revolution results in a true democracy. I am not sure however that the US will allow it.If what this article says about Obama's attitude towards Egypt is true,if he is even worse than Bush in that respect, then my disappointment with him is total. That in itself is very depressing.
What I find puzzling is that not only our support for tyrants is immoral but it doesn't even achieve what we think it should achieve. Instead of getting rid of communism or islamism, like keeping a lid on a boiling cauldron, it only exacerbates the situation. In the end it would be in the West's interest to encourage true democracy, as democracy would be a much better protection against extremism than tyranny.
In other words, our interventions around the world are completely counter-productive as well as evil.
Irak is a sad example of that of course.

Sun, 2011-01-30 20:23 — Fruininut

The immutable truth is that there is no such thing as democracy anywhere in the world,what we have is pseudo democracies. ! democracy and politicians are an oxymoron.

Sun, 2011-01-30 20:40 — Quizmoquanto

Theb only consideration the US is making, and the only consideration any power in it's position would be making, is which outcome best suits it's needs. It's actions so far indicate that it hasn't made up it's mind yet. It has not really endorsed either side in the conflict, and is "reviewing" the aid it gives to Mubarak.

My impression is that Mubaraks government is important to US policy for two reasons: His work in supresssing islamism and his support for israel. As far as the WOT goes, I can see the US settling for dealing with a more democratic Egypt (assuming this revolution does result in a more democratic Egypt); not only would unambiguous support be a propaganda coup, democracies are at least a type that the US knows how to deal with. The real unknown quantity is Israel, which for all we know would "strategically" bomb targets in Egypt as soon as athoritarian control was lost. This would be an action which the US would yet again be forced to support.

Cold War US policy and modern US policy are different animals, no matter what Pilger might say. The US likely won't go to the expense of giving Mubarak actual military aid, and it's even less likely they will try to undo a democracy (or whatever) once it has been established. But as things are right now, the US is probably not confident enough in what the outcome will be to openly support this revolt.

Sun, 2011-01-30 21:39 — triedeinsursE

"There’s no reason to believe that the uprising will bring radical Islamists to power – so why isn’t the US supporting it?"

Because you're wrong.

Sun, 2011-01-30 21:52 — Des Demona (not verified)

Help! I find myself in agreement with Buckskins!lol
It is clear that the US is in effect supporting the demonstrators by not withdrawing the billion dollar aid package. That's politically all they can do at this stage. Imagine the political capital the Islamists would make of any opposition to the government the US openly supported?

Sun, 2011-01-30 22:19 — Daniele1

If the Us do not support the protesters and tell Mubarack to step down, it will show 2 things. first, that the US don't give a damn about democracy in Egypt. Second, it will demonstrate that all the US cares about is the suppression of Islamism and the protection of Israel.
It will then be a green light for the Islamists to come out and tell the Egyptians how the US have let them down and that a Western style democracy is not worth having. Many people will then turn to them for salvation. Can you blame them?
A missed opportunity indeed. Then the US wonder why so many people hate them.

Sun, 2011-01-30 22:37 — Des Demona (not verified)

@ Daniele
The Islamists are already there as the only real organised opposition - in the shape of the Muslim Brotherhood'
The US has to take all these factors into account. If they openly support the demonstrators,( though not yet knowing their political/religious makeup) then they risk being accused of trying to put their own people in place and giving a propoganda coup to the Islamists.
There is idealism and there is real politik. I think so far the US is playing a straight bat.
(that's a cricketing term Buckskins)

Sun, 2011-01-30 22:56 — triedeinsursE

"Then the US wonder why so many people hate them"

Actually we can give a rats ass who likes us and who does not. In fact to take it a step further, if it's not happening within US borders most Americans can care less. Have a nice day Daniele.

Sun, 2011-01-30 23:00 — Des Demona (not verified)

@ Buckskins
'if it's not happening within US borders most Americans can care less.'

Clearly you are an exception - but is that a good thing? lol

Sun, 2011-01-30 23:11 — triedeinsursE

Des.

Daniele does not believe half that garbage he is posting. He is trying to goad me into one of his childish name calling fests.

Should Egypt go the way of Iran I don't see a major problem. If they get antsy again Israel can take care of the lot of them. We do have something of a bread and butter ration to twist their arms with if need be. A rumbling tummy can humble religious aspirations.

Mon, 2011-01-31 01:45 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

If demands were for a job with a decent income, an end to the 30-year-long emergency rule, safe roads and public transportation, fair elections and a police force whose role is to protect rather than intimidate them, then surely what is needed is a way to sort things out generally which treats all stakeholders equally and respects everyone's position carefully and sensitively - especially the military. A decent raising a concern policy should help perhaps, so everyone concerned can make time and space to share vital information with a view to creating decent public services openly,honestly and without fear or favour (as we say here in the UK)

Personally I've found it useful in times of change for example, to view things in terms of better governance ie understanding the difference between the good governance of "the firm"( whatever, wherever the firm might be) and the good governance of "the commons" ( ie citizens who may or may not have any kind of contract). In my experience this can help one get one's head round a positively diverse range of seemingly disparate modern and ancient concerns which may or may not be going..

I'm sure the Egyptians can sort themselves out and I hope their President together with the military can help guide everyone in the right direction, safely.

Mon, 2011-01-31 01:52 — Duane Seigler (not verified)

http://egyptinternetprotest.blogspot.com/

Mon, 2011-01-31 11:51 — Bill Fraser (not verified)

What's so wrong with letting the Egyptian people decide?

Watched Tony Blair (remember him?) on Sky this morning talking about his old friend President Mubarak... and saying change in Egypt needs to be managed! Managed by who, the Americans?

Mon, 2011-01-31 13:10 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Bill Fraser,

Yes your concerns are my concerns, some bloke (British) was being interviewed by R5 this morning saying that the Suez Canal is vital to world trade and must be kept open. I expect the nutters in Washington and London are already making their plans!