February 24, 2006

Egyptian Democratization Watch

From the Economist:

As for internal reform, the signs are that it is America that is muting its demands. Last time Ms Rice was in Cairo, in June, she appealed for Egypt to lead the region in democratisation. Since then, Egypt has held presidential and parliamentary elections, but both were marred by massive fiddling. In recent weeks, Egypt has jailed a candidate who challenged Mr Mubarak for the presidency, summarily postponed local elections due in April, mounted pressure on judges who protested against vote-rigging under the country's notorious emergency laws. During the elections some 1,500 Muslim Brothers were arrested; most were set free quite soon, but a score or so remain behind bars.

The Bush administration has responded by suspending talks on a bilateral free-trade agreement. Yet in Cairo Ms Rice contented herself with expressing disappointment at “setbacks” to reform, which she said fell within a context of continuing progress and friendly dialogue. Despite signs that America's western allies are inching towards talks with the Brothers, the Bush team remains wary of offending Mr Mubarak's regime by courting the rising party, which has yet to be made legal. The underlying signal, it seems, is that the Bush administration deems the regional situation too precarious, in the short run, for the kind of hasty experimentation that might weaken occasionally useful friends such as Mr Mubarak.

You think? Such realities, however, won't stop the predictable gaggles of useful idiots from chanting on "faster, please!" The reality is that Condi Rice's State Department is making the right call here. At least in the short term, we must reduce pressure on Mubarak. The regional situation is far too incendiary right now without adding a too emboldened Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to the mix. I hope Bush gets this, his use of the word "freedom" seemingly 50 times a day aside. Order matters too sometimes. Read your Hobbes.

P.S. If you notice I'm getting a bit more shrill here, of late, well, you might be on to something. The stakes are getting higher and higher in the Middle East. Major forces are at play throughout the region, and the time for soft-ball exchanges with under-informed blogospheric and other 'commentators' is over. When people are full of it, or haven't much of a clue re: the ramifications of policies they breathlessly advocate (just whack Iran dude! Syria too! Speed up democratization in Egypt, and all will be swell!), we are going to call them on it without any niceties. Time is short, people need reality checks etc etc.

Just an in-house note for regulars. Thanks for humoring me for a little spell....and hope I don't scare too many of you away...I'm starting to wonder, truth be told, whether we have enough policymakers in Washington who really understand how very fraught with danger the regional situation is in the Middle East is right now. I'm just not sure how deep the bench is, frankly, and am a tad concerned. Someone at NSC or State--Email me and let me know all is well (your privacy assured)!

P.P.S. Don't miss this part of the Economist piece either:

You can't have it both ways, is what America's secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, is telling Arab audiences during a tour of friendly capitals to rally sagging support for American policy in the Middle East. You can't preach violence and expect international aid, she says of Hamas, the Islamist party that recently swept Palestinian elections. No one will respect you if you signal reform but act repressively, she advises Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak. You can't say in private that you fear Iran going nuclear but do nothing to stop it happening, she will tell Gulf leaders.

Yet Ms Rice is hearing much the same refrain in response. America cannot preach democracy in Palestine, then chastise the winners, just as it cannot demand concessions from Hamas without Israel budging, too. It cannot bully dictatorial allies to reform, then always expect their support. And America cannot single out Iran on the nuclear issue, while ignoring Israel's nearby arsenal. It's like Dick Cheney hunting quail but shooting his friend instead, joked a Saudi columnist.

These are real issues. Who has really thought them through? I don't see it yet. And so I'm worried, not only re: confused policy, but other reasons besides. More on all this soon, more by way of analysis rather than panicky alarm-bell ringing, I hope!

I'm starting to wonder, truth be told, whether we have enough policymakers in Washington who really understand how very fraught with danger the regional situation is in the Middle East is right now. I'm just not sure how deep the bench is, frankly, and am a tad concerned. Someone at NSC or State--Email me and let me know all is well (your privacy assured)!

Given the last five years, why should you or I or anyone have any confidence that the people making American policies aren't completely, totally, absolutely out of their depth? I'm sure that there are competent, worldly people somewhere in the apparatus, but who listens to them? Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld hear what they want to hear, no more.

Posted by: sglover at February 24, 2006 03:55 PM | Permalink to this comment

What bench?

In case you haven't noticed, for the past five years the Bush regime has done its best to encourage the careerists throughout the government to get lost.

Face it, when Condi ("no one could have imagined they'd fly planes into buildings) Rice is the person that you look to for "wisdom and leadership" in this administration, its the equivalent of having the third string quaterback calling the plays. We are PLAYING the bench right now, Greg.....

and our team is getting its ass handed to it, because the General Manager is a complete moron.....

Posted by: p.lukasiak at February 24, 2006 04:11 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Order matters too sometimes"

in both senses of the word. Sequence matters.

One thing we want to do is bolster the secular opposition in Egypt. Theres some evidence that one of the reasons mubarak comes down so hard on Ayman Nour, is cause hes quite aware of how scary the MB is to the US, and hes gaming us, by weakening any alternatives. Which is why Condi is pressuring him on that.

Also of course we need Egypt to help manage Hamas. Of course how valuable that is depends on how much that actually buys us. Backing up Mubarak is definitely a cost to us, in the long term in egypt, and across the region. We cant forget that. So if Mubarak can deliver on Hamas (as well as other issues) well and good.

Iran - do you think the money for broadcasting is a mistake?

Syria - should we not keep pressing for responses to the investigation?

Sure - job 1 is fixing Iraq, and job 2 is dealing with Hamas, and job 3 is waiting out the cartoon stuff. After that we've still got to have a long term strategy.

Posted by: liberalhawk at February 24, 2006 05:17 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Yet Ms Rice is hearing much the same refrain in response. America cannot preach democracy i n Palestine, then chastise the winners,"

I think that has been answered quite adequately. Those who dont get, dont want to get it.

" just as it cannot demand concessions from Hamas without Israel budging, too."

Oslo was based on the Israelis withdrawing from certain areas of the territories and allowing the PA to be set up, in EXCHANGE for the PLO recognizing Israel and renouncing terror. That was a considerable budge from status quo 1991. All thats being asked now is that Hamas accept the same deal the PLO did in 1992. Again, anyone who doesnt understand that, doesnt want to.

" It cannot bully dictatorial allies to reform, then always expect their support."

Depends of course on the referend of "bully". Id say the pressure on Egypt, KSA, etc has in fact been fairly light. In Uzbekistan, where the govt was massacring people, we took a harder line and accepted being tossed out. Do you think that was a mistake?

" And America cannot single out Iran on the nuclear issue, while ignoring Israel's nearby arsenal."

Another standard talking point. Israel built its arsenal when ALL of its neighbors denied its existence. A considerable number still do.

Posted by: liberalhawk at February 24, 2006 05:23 PM | Permalink to this comment

I think that has been answered quite adequately. Those who dont get, dont want to get it.

Ah, right -- in the end, a democratic result is what we say it is.

I think the days when anyone in Southwest Asia pays attention to what the U.S. says are fast drawing to a close. So enjoy it while you can.

Posted by: sglover at February 24, 2006 06:45 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Ah, right -- in the end, a democratic result is what we say it is"

having a democratic election doesnt free you from your obligations. Whats so hard to understand about that?

Posted by: liberalhawk at February 24, 2006 07:23 PM | Permalink to this comment

Greg finds Condi Rice admirable, for reasons unfathomable to the lay mind.

Atrios: "Just a Thought: Why has no one bothered to notice that putting two people in charge (Rice and Hughes) of shaping our image abroad whose entire schtick consists of talking to people as if they're 8 years olds was probably not the best idea."

He has a point. He might've added that this ability does much to explain their ability to relate to Bush.

Posted by: Anderson at February 25, 2006 08:45 PM | Permalink to this comment