WASHINGTON— Caught off guard by the sustained strength of the popular revolt in Egypt, President Barack Obama has responded publicly by hedging his bets — neither voicing support for President Hosni Mubarak nor calling for the outright removal of America’s longest-standing Arab ally in the Middle East.
It’s an approach that is winning the U.S. leader few fans among pro-democracy activists — in the Arab world and elsewhere — who once hoped Mr. Obama would embrace the “freedom agenda” so fervently championed by his predecessor, George W. Bush.
Grounded more in realpolitik than any altruistic notion about fostering Middle East democracy, the White House’s cautious, carefully-worded call for an “orderly transition” to a new government reflects a more sober recognition that, no matter how the crisis in Egypt resolves itself, that resolution may not be a happy one for the U.S.
“The best result is that there is no bloodbath and you have a coalition government of various elements in Egypt that can work with the United States,” said Thomas Whalen, a Boston University political scientist.
“But whatever regime comes in power and replaces Mubarak, it probably will put the United States at an arm’s length, at the very least.”
Repressive and uncompromising in dealing with his own people, Mr. Mubarak nonetheless has been America’s strongest ally in the Middle East for three decades.
Not only has Egypt been a moderating force in how the Arab world deals with Israel, the Mubarak regime has provided valuable military and intelligence assistance to successive American administrations.
The U.S., in turn, has long backstopped the Egyptian government’s military. Since 1979, Mr. Mubarak’s regime has received an average of $2-billion in aid — primarily military — from Washington, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Clifford May, president of the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said it would be“unseemly for the U.S. to be seen as pushing Mubarak out” because of his loyalty to America.
But the U.S. should be using its influence with the Egyptian leader to quietly but forcefully urge him to step down and allow the formation of a stable, transitional government, said May.
“We have had many years to plan for the transition from Mubarak. The guy is 82 years old. This is not a contingency that could not have been foreseen,” he said.
In particular, Mr. May said the Obama administration should be tapping its allies within the Egyptian military to discuss the transition from the Mubarak era.
“If we do not have such allies, then the Obama administration — and maybe the administrations prior to it — was not doing their homework. That would be a dreadful thing and a bad stain on America’s image.”
While the U.S. wants to be seen as siding with Egyptians seeking an end to decades of iron-fisted rule, analysts say the administration is also deeply concerned about how a power vacuum created by Mubarak’s departure would be filled.
The prospect of the powerful Muslim Brotherhood uniting with secular opposition groups to form a new government may pose the greatest threat— casting uncertainty over Egypt’s long-standing strategic alliance with the U.S. and the fate of its 32-year-old peace agreement with Israel.
On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu likened the danger lurking in Egypt to the rise of Islamic fundamentalists in Iran in 1979 following the ouster of the Shah, another strong-armed American ally.
“The big threat here is that this upheaval, which is in favour of more freedoms, more democracy and more prosperity, gets hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the one opposition group that is disciplined and well organized,” Mr. May said. “That would be a tragedy for Egypt, for American interests and it would be a great threat to Israel as well.”
The possibility of ongoing instability in Egypt has raised fears about long-term access to the Suez Canal— a vital shipping lane for Middle East oil — and the potential for political upheaval to spread to other parts of the Middle East.
In calculating his response to the crisis in Egypt, Obama is also weighing the expectations of him among democracy activists in the Middle East.
In his June 2009 speech in Cairo to the Muslim world, Mr. Obama said Arab nations would never emerge as true democracies unless they maintained their power“through consent, not coercion.”
By offering support for peaceful protests without explicitly seeking Mr. Mubarak’s departure, Mr. Obama “risks being seen as a hypocrite,” Mr. Whalen said. “He is trying to have it both ways.”
But Americans should also not over-estimate Mr. Obama’s popularity or influence in the Arab world, Mr. May said. While the U.S. president has expressed support for freedom and democracy movements, he has never put it at the centre of American foreign policy the way Mr. Bush did.
Had he backed his predecessor’s agenda, “the current uprising in Egypt would have been seen as part of this wave of democratization that the U.S. has been consistently supporting and promoting,” Mr. May said. “But because Obama broke with that, it is hard for anyone to see this as something that America wanted to have occur. And it is hard for Obama to strongly support it on the ground right now.”
When pressed Monday on whether Mr. Mubarak should stay in power, and if the U.S. believes he is capable on implementing democratic reforms, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs dodged.
“It is not up to us to determine when the grievances of the Egyptian people have been met by the Egyptian government,” Mr. Gibbs said at the daily White House briefing.
When asked what the U.S. means by its call for an“orderly transition” to democracy, Mr. Gibbs said Egypt’s leadership must hold “free and fair” presidential elections this September and “constitutional changes that facilitate a more open and more democratic process.”
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий