Will the Egyptian revolution of 2011 be a repeat of the Iranian revolution of 1979, when a U.S.-backed dictator was replaced by a virulently anti-Western Islamic theocracy? Former Republican Senator Rick Santorum thinks so. Last Friday, Santorum warned:
"We abandoned [the shah] and what we got in exchange was ... a radical Islamist regime. That happening in Egypt would have a profound effect on the Middle East.”
Now the Iranian government itself is claiming that Egyptians are following Khomeini's lead, albeit with a 32-year delay.
We don't yet know where this popular uprising will lead, and outcomes far less benign than pluralist democracy are certainly possible. But the Iranian scenario seems an unlikely fit in Egypt.
The Muslim Brotherhood is relatively moderate by the standards of many Islamist organizations (see here and here). Besides, it's just one player among many in Egypt's uprising, with a limited following. Indeed, there is no obvious individual in Egypt who can impose an ideological vision on the revolution like Khomeini did. Secular opposition groups and the Brotherhood have rallied around Mohamed ElBaradei as an informal spokesman, but the former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (who has often expressed his admiration for President Obama in the past) is hardly Khomeini's heir.
The more realistic concern is not an Egyptian theocracy, but a new military dictatorship. The military defied Mubarak by refusing to fire on protestors (so far). But even if the generals oust him, that doesn’t necessarily mean they'll embrace democracy. It will be tempting for the military to simply replace Mubarak with a new strongman from their ranks. And the risk of a military consolidation of power grows more likely as Mubarak lingers, fomenting chaos in the streets.
So what should the U.S. government do? After a week of dithering, the Obama administration was right to call for Mubarak's rapid departure. (This position finally puts him on the same page with the protestors, who rejected Mubarak's pledge to finish his term in office.) But the U.S. has only cut off Mubarak rhetorically. It is meaningless to demand reforms while assuring Egypt's military that we will continue to provide $1.3 billion in annual aid.
In an interview Monday, Secretary Clinton stated: "There is no discussion of cutting off aid." Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley commented earlier this week that "If aid is used in a way that is contrary to our laws, our policies and our values, you know, we'll make adjustments as we need to." As the Egyptian government directed armed (and apparently bribed) mobs to attack protestors journalists, and human rights workers, Crowley confirmed today that Washington still has no plans to cut off funds. What precisely does Mubarak need to do before the Obama administration decides his actions are contrary to American values?
Egyptians have a right to choose who will lead them, and America has no place picking a leader for them. But we do have a responsibility not to support a government which denies them that right. The United States should pledge to withdraw security aid to Cairo if Mubarak does not resign soon. And if he does go, we should make clear that continued U.S. assistance is contingent on the government taking credible steps toward free elections and refraining from violence against peaceful demonstrators.
If Egyptians want our help during a transition to democracy, we should also offer election monitors, advisors on judicial reform, and other forms of technical assistance. (And we should not provide selective assistance to particular parties that we want to win elections.) And crucially, we should promise to continue aid to any government Egyptians elect, provided it is committed to respecting democratic practices and human rights, even if such a government includes politicians from the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Muslim Brotherhood is relatively moderate by the standards of many Islamist organizations (see here and here). Besides, it's just one player among many in Egypt's uprising, with a limited following. Indeed, there is no obvious individual in Egypt who can impose an ideological vision on the revolution like Khomeini did. Secular opposition groups and the Brotherhood have rallied around Mohamed ElBaradei as an informal spokesman, but the former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (who has often expressed his admiration for President Obama in the past) is hardly Khomeini's heir.
The more realistic concern is not an Egyptian theocracy, but a new military dictatorship. The military defied Mubarak by refusing to fire on protestors (so far). But even if the generals oust him, that doesn’t necessarily mean they'll embrace democracy. It will be tempting for the military to simply replace Mubarak with a new strongman from their ranks. And the risk of a military consolidation of power grows more likely as Mubarak lingers, fomenting chaos in the streets.
So what should the U.S. government do? After a week of dithering, the Obama administration was right to call for Mubarak's rapid departure. (This position finally puts him on the same page with the protestors, who rejected Mubarak's pledge to finish his term in office.) But the U.S. has only cut off Mubarak rhetorically. It is meaningless to demand reforms while assuring Egypt's military that we will continue to provide $1.3 billion in annual aid.
In an interview Monday, Secretary Clinton stated: "There is no discussion of cutting off aid." Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley commented earlier this week that "If aid is used in a way that is contrary to our laws, our policies and our values, you know, we'll make adjustments as we need to." As the Egyptian government directed armed (and apparently bribed) mobs to attack protestors journalists, and human rights workers, Crowley confirmed today that Washington still has no plans to cut off funds. What precisely does Mubarak need to do before the Obama administration decides his actions are contrary to American values?
Egyptians have a right to choose who will lead them, and America has no place picking a leader for them. But we do have a responsibility not to support a government which denies them that right. The United States should pledge to withdraw security aid to Cairo if Mubarak does not resign soon. And if he does go, we should make clear that continued U.S. assistance is contingent on the government taking credible steps toward free elections and refraining from violence against peaceful demonstrators.
If Egyptians want our help during a transition to democracy, we should also offer election monitors, advisors on judicial reform, and other forms of technical assistance. (And we should not provide selective assistance to particular parties that we want to win elections.) And crucially, we should promise to continue aid to any government Egyptians elect, provided it is committed to respecting democratic practices and human rights, even if such a government includes politicians from the Muslim Brotherhood.
The real lesson of Iran for the U.S. is the danger of propping up tyrants. Wholeheartedly embracing Egypt’s democratic aspirations is not just the right thing to do. It’s also in America's interest, if we want to maintain a sustainable alliance with Egypt after Mubarak is gone. Because Egyptians will remember how we acted when it mattered most. It's time to cut off their oppressor.
No comments:
Post a Comment