The Egyptian Army is not an instrument of either reform or democracy

The Egyptian Army is not a democratic institution despite its recent pretensions.  One only needs to recall following the ouster of Mubarak for a reminder of how quickly the Army's penchant for autocracy surfaces.  Today's slaughter of scores of apparently innocent civilian protesters underlines the urgency of getting the generals out of the Presidential palace.

Before the situation in Egypt slides further into mayhem, the USG, and not least Obama, needs to grasp that pretending what has happened was not a coup d'état only encourages the generals.  The beginning of an effective policy response is using the word c-o-u-p.  This will oblige the US to suspend military aid and strengthen leverage for moving quickly to a government of national reconciliation.  Now, more than ever, insuring the participation of the MB in such a government is urgent.

The most thuggish institution in Egypt is the police, which has resisted successfully recent attempts at reform.   unless there is an effective establishment of an effective civilian transitional leadership, the police, with the Army's sufferance if not collusion, will return to the business as usual that they know best, namely beating, abusing and arresting anyone who deems to challenge their reign.  

The situation in Egypt threatens to unravel disastrously and compelling US interests demand a firm and unmistakable commitment to inclusive civilian rule in Egypt.  Dawdling only amplifies the long-range risks for the US.

Perceptive OPED by Khaled Abou el-Fadl, "Perils of a People's Coup."

[Also see the concise analysis of Prof. Yoram Meital, a serious student of Egypt, and Sarah Carr's powerful reflection, "On Sheep and Infidels".]

US National debt is in excess of $14 trillion. So consider that the Cost of War project finds that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will end up costing $4,000,000, 000,000 (four trillion).

Project web page offers analyses of economic, human and political costs of these wars.  Or download the executive summary, or the constituent papers.

Eva Bellin: People Power and the Possibilities of Democratic Transition in the Middle East, April 12

Change, its been a long time coming and now is a time for rethinking of paradigms

 Challenging conventional wisdom:

1995:

"The pressures for political reform are being felt across the Middle East--which is not to argue that ruling autocrats are contemplating retirement cottages in Provence. Those who rule do not savor conceding power. Nonetheless, sharing power through inclusionary reform is a means of preserving some power. Even in Libya the resident eccentric, Muammar Qaddafi, has been moving along the path of reform. Strategies of inclusion will obviously vary, and reverses are to be expected. The path of reform is strewn with risks for the present leaders and for the opposition, as well as for outside players. Nonetheless, if the perils of reform invite anxiety, the dangers of clinging to the authoritarian status quo are even more unsettling."  ("The Challenge of Inclusion in the Middle East," Current History, Jan. 1995)

1993: 

"The simple ideas that people should have a voice in decisions that affect their lives, that governments should respond to citizens' needs, that people have a right not to be mistreated by their rulers seems to provoke little controversy, except, that is, until we come to the Middle East, and, particularly, the Arab world. There democracy is said to have no resonance at all given the emerging social forces of Islamic populism." ("Inclusion can deflate Islamic Populism," New Perspectives Quarterly, 1993). 

 2002:

"More important, anger is certainly a by-product of the frustration that grips many Muslim societies, where one’s life chances are stymied by rigid political systems and stale economies that resist reform. The United States is often resented for propping up unpopular and corrupt regimes rather than prodding them to change their ways. Despite considerable Washington rhetoric about promoting democracy in the world, American policymakers have preferred assured stability to the promotion of freedom and reform in the Middle East." ("America's Approach to the Middle East, Current History, Jan. 2002). 

What are Israeli strategists thinking? One example.

The setting for these remarks was the Herzliya National Security Conference, in early February.  They are reported in Defense News, Feb. 14, 2011, pp. 1 and 8.

Retired U.S. Marine Gen. James Jones, who up until last October served as Obama’s national securi­ty adviser, dismissed claims of Washington’s decline.

“I reject the idea that the United States is in decline or even in rela­tive decline,” Jones told conference participants here. “To be sure, there is much to be done to ensure we are as successful in the 21st century as we were in the 20th ... and Egypt is just a small sign of the potential for change.” Alongside efforts to prevent a nu­clear-armed Iran and to fortify a coalition of the moderates com­prised of pro-Western Arab states respectful of the universal rights of its people, Jones cited the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as “a mat­ter of urgent necessity.” Jones said the lack of a peace deal jeopardizes regional stability by un­dermining moderates, provoking the young and hopeless classes, and empowering Iran.

Time is not on Israel’s side, Jones warned: “The growing isolation of Israel is a very real concern. The number of countries that recognize a Palestinian state can outrank the number of countries that recognize Israel.” Jones urged Israel’s leaders to restart peace negotiations.

“Failure to act could ignite a rep­etition of Egypt on streets in neigh­boring countries,” he said. “Will ex­tremists win the hearts and minds of the young Arab street? Or will moderate voices prevail for a two­state solution? This could be the most important national security question of our time, and if we fail, history will not forgive us.” Amos Gilead, director for politi­cal-military affairs at Israel’s Min­istry of Defense, was brutally direct in rejecting Jones’ premise.

“Even if we sign an agreement to­morrow with the [Palestinian Au­thority], they won’t honor it,” Gilead said. “Look around the Middle East: If there is a democratic process here, it will bring, for sure, hell.” In tactless and borderline racist remarks here, Gilead insisted that democracy and stability cannot co­exist in the Arab Middle East.

“In the Middle East and the Arab world, there is no place for democ­racy,” he said.

Gilead said free elections in the region would breed either a Gaza­like “Hamastan,” or Lebanon, which he described as a so-called democracy.

“In Lebanon, there is a constitu­tion without a state. They have an elected president, prime minister, speaker, but the country is losing it­self when it allows entities more powerful than Lebanon to drive the agenda,” Gilead said, alluding to Hezbollah.

“The only place in the region with a real chance of democracy is Iran,” a non-Arab nation, he said. “But what was the reaction to Iranian democratic forces? Indifference. And so dissenters in Iran got the message and we lost the opportuni­ty to change Iran.”

My comment on the Adam Shatz Egypt essay

The original post.

Mubarak’s Last Breath

Adam Shatz writes that Egyptians ‘fear that they will never know democracy because of the “American veto”’ (LRB, 27 May). It’s true that the US has been a less than enthusiastic backer of Egyptian political reform during the Mubarak years, but it’s still worth pointing out a few important, and indeed hopeful nuances of US policy. As Shatz notes, Mubarak managed to circumvent American pressure to democratise, thanks in part to Hamas’s victory in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, which took the wind from the sails of George W. Bush’s quixotic quest for democratic reform. After 2006, regime insiders relaxed, gloating that they ‘knew how to handle the US’. Yet Obama has proved far harder for Mubarak and his cronies to read. Gone is the two aspirins at bedtime Bush prescription for democracy, but it isn’t business as usual either. Obama has kept Mubarak at arm’s length, notably deflecting the Egyptian president’s offer to introduce him at his speech in Cairo in June 2009. When Obama spoke, he walked to the podium to the cadence of ‘Hail to the Chief’, and Mubarak was nowhere in sight – a marked contrast with his speech two months earlier in Ankara, where he addressed the Turkish parliament and was introduced by the Speaker. As many Egyptians remarked, the Cairo speech gave no comfort to Mubarak and his fellow kleptocrats. In another sign of a sterner, less tolerant US tone, Hillary Clinton has assailed the Egyptian government for its recent extension of the Emergency Law. This suggests a more skilful approach than in the Bush years, one that might help restore some vibrancy to Egypt’s dismal politics.

Augustus Richard Norton
Boston University

Saad Eddin Ibrahim sentenced to two years in jail

Ibrahim was tried in absentia, and I suspect he will not rush back from Qatar to serve his sentence. He has already enjoyed Egyptian prison hospitality. Saad Eddin Ibrahim is an old friend, and I have long admired his candor and his intellectual courage. My affection for Ibrahim notwithstanding, this latest trial is yet another sad moment for the Mubarak regime, which looks more and more like a pathetic eastern Europe dictatorship in the last days of the crumbling Soviet empire.
Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Exiled Egyptian activist sentenced

An earlier piece here on Egypt.

Now 3,001 political prisoners in Syria with the arrest of Riad Seif

FT.com / World - Syria arrests prominent dissident

"Haitham Maleh, a prominent human rights lawyer, estimates the country now has more than 3000 political prisoners now, compared to 2000 people in jail for their political views in 2005. Last year, the courts handed down stiff sentences of up to 12 years to at least six prominent dissidents, including human rights lawyer Anwar Bunni and writer Michel Kilo. They were arrested after signing a declaration criticising the government’s policies in neighbouring Lebanon in 2006."

Bush and his blather

You have to wonder, and I mean this as a serious question, does George Bush understand utter hypocrisy that he epitomizes in so many places around the world? Here we have a president who has espoused democracy withHosni Mubarak, a leader who mocks and superficially placates the democracy project, and that same leader is praised for "democratic reform." At the least, the president needs to find some new speech writers. This is beyond embarrassing, it is pitiful.

Bush says Egypt on path to 'political openness' - Los Angeles Times: "He made no mention of the Egyptian government's continued crackdowns on dissent and the jailing of an opposition presidential candidate.

"With President Hosni Mubarak standing expressionless beside him, Bush said journalists, bloggers and judges in Egypt were 'insisting on independence' and, along with civic and religious leaders, were 'determined to build a democratic future.'

"He said the Egyptian leader had moved his nation toward 'economic openness . . . and democratic reform.'

"But, in a diplomatic nudge, he said: 'My hope is that the Egyptian government will build on these important steps and give the people of this proud nation a greater voice in [Egypt's] future. I think it will lead to peace, and I think it will lead to justice.'"

Make it a point to read Maureen Dowd's column, "Faith, Freedom and Bling in the Middle East. " It is one her very best, perhaps ever.

A very silly article

Hassan Fattah is the Times' man in the Middle East. He begins with the assumption that the U.S. government is actually promoting democracy in the Arab world. As some of you will know, I have long been identified with supporting political reform, liberalization and even democratization under the right conditions (in other words, not the two-aspirins-at-bedtime variety that the Bush adminstration has promoted). I won't belabor the point here except to note that it is amply demonstrated that the U.S. has been very selective in its embrace of democracy. One needs to look no further than Egypt or Palestine to see the evidence.

Fattah then proceeds to argue that any group supported by the U.S. is bound to lose, that U.S. support is a curse. No doubt, U.S. Middle East policy is seen by many people in the Arab world as a disaster, and they are clear-sighted in my view. The problem is that the U.S. has often backed candidates, think of Iyad 'Allawi or Ahmed Chelabi in Iraq for instance, who may be willing tools of U.S. policy but are simply unpopular. Their unpopularity is not simply a function of U.S. support but the views and domestic interests that they represent.

Also, Fattah reduces the recent by-elections in Lebanon to a contest between the U.S. on one side and Iran and Syria on the other. He pays no attention whatsoever to the important role that ideology plays in voter choices. Michel Aoun and his opposition allies, notably Hezbollah, offer a critique of the political system in Lebanon that many Lebanese (by no means all) find compelling. For many voters, it is at least as likely that they were voting against corruption, inefficiency and unresponsive government than they were cast a ballot in a geopolitical popularity contest. Aoun has many faults, but to reduce his political support to him being a pro-Syrian pawn is ill-informed at best.

Finally, there is a strange analysis of the 1958 U.S. intervention in Lebanon. In Fattah's telling the intervention was successful because it preserved the pro-western government of President Camille Chamoun against pro-Nasser Arab nationalists. In fact, the crisis in Lebanon was provoked, in part, because Chamoun was seeking an unconstitutional second presidential term in office. If the U.S. intervention was successful, it was because Chamoun was persuaded to leave office on schedule. He was replaced by General Fouad Chehab, who is often described as one of Lebanon's best presidents, and one who understood the need to address regional development in the country.

U.S. Backs Free Elections, Only to See Allies Lose - New York Times

The Politics of Churlishness--a topic for serious debate

TNR Online | The Politics of Churlishness (print): "History has never traveled in the Middle East as fast as it has during the last two years. In this place where time seems to have stopped, time has suddenly accelerated. It may be true (more likely, it is not) that a deep yearning for democracy has been latent throughout the region for a long time. There certainly was a basis in reality for skepticism about the Arabs' hospitability to the opening of their societies. Whatever the proper historical and cultural analysis of the past, however, the fact is that democracy did not begin even to breathe until the small coalition of Western nations led by the United States destroyed the most ruthless dictatorship in the area. "
[Recent link Feb 2011]