We Reap What We Sow

Egypt had been out of the headlines until this piece Rice Speaks Softly in the Egypt, Avoiding Democracy, in the New York Times, that explores the contradictions and dangers of US policy in Egypt. Several excerpts:

Ms. Rice, who once lectured Egyptians on the need to respect the rule of law, did not address those domestic concerns. Instead, with Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit by her side, she talked about her appreciation for Egypt’s support in the region.

It was clear that the United States — facing chaos in Iraq, rising Iranian influence and the destabilizing Israeli-Palestinian conflict — had decided that stability, not democracy, was its priority, Egyptian political commentators, political aides and human rights advocates said.

At the same time, where Washington was criticized in the past for supporting repressive governments, it risks even sharper criticism now because it made such a public commitment to promoting democracy.

Ms. Rice raised the bar herself when she visited American University here in 2005 and said in a speech: “We are all concerned for the future of Egypt’s reforms when peaceful supporters of democracy — men and women — are not free from violence. The day must come when the rule of law replaces emergency decrees — and when the independent judiciary replaces arbitrary justice.”

Since then, Egypt’s government has piled up a long list of repressive actions, including ordering the police to block people from voting in parliamentary elections; delaying local elections by two years; imprisoning an opposition leader, Ayman Nour, on charges widely seen as politically motivated; battling with judges who have demanded oversight of elections; and imprisoning Talaat el-Sadat, a member of Parliament and the nephew of President Anwar el-Sadat, for a year in a military jail after he criticized the armed forces on television.

U.S. support for the despotic regime of Hosni Mubarak has long-served U.S. purposes: stability and secularism, at the expense of the liberties of the Egyptian people. In Rice's above mentioned speech at AUC, echoing the empty rhetoric of George W. Bush's second inaugural address, she lead liberal Egyptians to believe that the United States would recognize and support the groups that aimed to liberalize Egyptian society and politics. Mubarak was savy enough to placate his American benefactors by seemingly loosening the restrictions on political parties and candidates outside of his own party, the ironically named National Democratic Party. Once the elections actually took place he brutally suppressed the ability of any other candidates to mount a serious campaign, ultimately, the most liberal candidates would end up in Egyptian prisons on trumped up charges.

Not surprisingly, the Muslim Brotherhood was the true benefactor of the supposed liberalization. Running under the banner of Independent candidacy, the Muslim Brotherhood is officially banned as a political party, the group made major gains in most regions and would have probably surpassed the NDP had it not been for wide scale voter intimidation and ballot rigging. Mubarak is unable to reign in the Islamic party in the same way that he is able to suppress the liberal candidates because of the popular strength of political Islam. It is ironic that Mubarak's dictatorship is partly to blame for the popularity of political Islam, although it is certainly become a regional trend, the only way for Egyptians to express any opinion outside of those in direct support of Mubarak is through the Mosque. That said, Mubarak and the state security services have also been ruthless in their suppression of Islamists, from time to time, particularly after terrorist attacks, rounding up hundreds of supposed Islamic militants and tossing them in jail. In spite of this, the regime's tolerance, for what in Egypt can be considered moderate political Islam, has allowed the ideas to flourish. I doubt that even with his overwhelming security apparatus Mubarak could suppress or jail the moderate (again by Egyptian standard) Islamic clerics without widespread public discontent.

When will America realize that over the long term it is subversive to US interests to support autocratic regimes in the interest of stability, over liberal movements within a country. Unfortunately many of the liberal candidates and supporters felt empowered by Rice's initial comments and thus tried to enter the public political fray, exposing themselves to Mubarak's security services. They learned the hard lesson not to take the United States at its word and we further empowered the regime. Interesting times are ahead once Mubarak dies or passes on the Presidency; are the people so crushed that they would simply accept it if Mubarak cedes power to his son Gamal, would the U.S. oppose?