I think this is first and foremost a matter for the Executive Branch – the President, his advisors, the Secretary of State and the rest of the diplomatic team in the Middle East – to produce some sort of approach/policy in future dealings with Egypt. As the discussion right now simply involves the allocation of funding/aid in the revolutionized country, it seems obvious that the officials most equipped to handle this sort of situation are those whose job is diplomacy in foreign affairs. I do not feel that Congress needs to be directly involved as of now.
President Obama’s handling of the rapidly developing and increasingly unstable situation, in my opinion, was appropriate and calculated. Many critics blasted him for not explicitly pledging support for either side but I thought this was a smart move. A slate.com article concisely voices my opinion: “There was no advantage in giving an opinion.”[1] Had Obama “chosen” sides, he would have showed his cards before the hand was played out. With the speed and uncertainty of the uprising, an event that was largely a civilized expression of citizen unrest, to NOT sit on the fence could have entailed serious, long-term problems in U.S. relations with Egypt. I appreciate the President’s decision to not meddle in the matters of a sovereign nation. The article goes on to say that posturing on Egypt would “have detracted from the power and appeal of the protests: They were organic and peaceful and growing even without official commentary from the United States. In the end, this wasn't about America, and the more that is made clear, administration officials hope, the more it will help the movement for freedom in the Middle East. In addition, it will put responsibility for success in Egypt not on the United States, but on the Egyptians.” I absolutely thought Obama and his staff handled the situation well and his comments during his talk at Northern were sensitive to the situation while still being sure to demarcate U.S. support for the spread of democracy.
The threat of Islamic occupation of power in Egypt is not entirely new: a similar situation arose in the 1980s with the assassination of President Anwar Sadat. In the wake, “he made security an absolute priority, arresting and imprisoning Islamists and their supporters across the country. [2] Expectations were high for the new President as were his promises for economic prosperity. Over the years though, Mubarak did not live up to his self-prescribed billing and the people became increasingly unhappy with each self-nominated terms of presidency. I have heard reports that Mubarak amassed incredible amounts – in the tens of billions – of dollars during his reign while Egypt continued in a downward spiral, spurred on by Mubarak’s increasingly brutal militant ruler ship.
Egypt, undoubtedly, is a major actor in maintaining some semblance of peace and stability in the Middle East. It is likely that there are many dictators and kings throughout the region that are unnerved by the goings-on in Egypt. As stated elsewhere in this forum, there is great opportunity in the vacuum the uprising has created for radical religious regimes to step in. But one of the goals of the movement was to enact a democracy, which has its own risks and benefits in itself for the U.S. What happens if a radical Muslim is elected through an entirely democratic voting? What if the new leader for Egypt does not wish to play guardian to Israel and U.S. interests in the Middle East? This is all incredibly uncertain for the United States but I do think that the movement was beneficial for the people of Egypt and their future.
Former senior advisor to the President, David Axelrod, spoke about the President’s continued pressure on Mubarak to improve his human rights record and decrease the use of torture and inhumane acts in dealing with Egyptian citizens. [3] This pressure was obviously fickle as Egypt has been one of our closest allies in the Middle East; however, it is a demonstration that the President has been engaged and aware of Mubarak’s terrible track record in matters of human treatment. So while Washington has long been a (financial) supporter of Egypt, they have – at least in recent years – been attempting to address one of the grievances that the protests have cited as motivating the recent activity.
In addition to Mubarak’s poor treatment of his citizens, the core problem is this: the majority of Egypt’s population is young, well-educated and unemployed. As stated, Mubarak allowed Egypt to fall into economic disarray while cashing in big bucks for his own estate. I think this is the area where U.S. aid would be most beneficial, effective and welcomed. There is serious push-back to Western, specifically U.S., involvement in Middle Eastern nations. If we do not want to increase anti-American sentiment in the region, we need to negotiate with Egypt with great sensitivity, which I feel President Obama and his staffers are well-equipped to do. I propose U.S. contributions targeted at creating more economic opportunities for young people in the public and private sector (i.e. small start-up loans for entrepreneurs, investment in infrastructure projects, etc.). It should be noted that these, in my opinion, should NOT be U.S. contractor jobs but rather investments in the Egyptian work-able population. With more aid and/or directing aid at the military, we could simply repeat what has happened in Iraq with a government essentially unable to prop themselves up without high U.S. support. With the strength of the Egyptian armed forces, there is no need to continue our aid in that sense.
This would be a move that I feel would benefit U.S.-Middle Eastern relations and set ourselves up in the long-term to show the Arab world that we are supporting their futures and the movement toward peace/stability, not just siding with whomever we want in power to control the region under our terms. I think if we were to make these sorts of investments, popular opinion about the U.S. and Western world could have marked improvements.
1. “Was Obama Too Indecisive On Egypt?” John Dickerson. http://www.slate.com/id/2284676/
2. “Egypt’s Mubarak: A Cautious, Heavy-Handed Ruler.” http://www.npr.org/2011/02/11/133665161/egypts-mubarak-a-cautious-heavy-handed-ruler
3. “Axelrod: President Obama has “On Several Occassions Directly Confronted” Mubarak on Human Rights for the Past Two Years “To Get Ahead of This.” http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/01/axelrod-president-obama-has-on-several-occasions-directly-confronted-mubarak-on-human-rights-for-the.html
No comments:
Post a Comment