The wrong side of history
In June 2009, US President Barack Obama gave a seminal speech in Egypt to the Muslim world in which he promised a new beginning built on mutual respect and shared values. In doing so he raised expectations in the region that his administration would deal with the core issues in the Middle East in an equitable and non-partisan manner. He famously also sent out a coded warning to those regimes on the "the wrong side of history" that their days were numbered.
However, that speech and the grand rhetoric of Obama is looking rather shallow right now. The protests taking place in Egypt are increasingly exposing the Obama regime itself as being on the wrong side of history. Here we have in Egypt, a people who have been repressed for the past 30 years under the dictator Husni Mubarak and have eventually found the courage to rise up in a desperate bid to gain their freedom. Over 100 Egyptians have been killed by the very people who are meant to protect them. The situation has now reached a stalemate with both the protesters and the Mubarak regime unwilling to back down. The time has come for US intervention to resolve the crisis.
As the situation in Egypt has unfolded the US has largely been playing catch up, changing its policy in response to events on the ground. The administration began by throwing its weight behind Mubarak with Clinton's flawed assessment that Egypt was 'stable' [under Mubarak's rule]. As the protests escalated the US began to backtrack and take a more nuanced position, supporting the Egyptian peoples' right to protest and later calling for reforms but at the same time refraining from directly criticising the Mubarak regime and the killing of protesters. And while some analysts, Marc Lynch in particular, continue to argue that the US is 'handling Egypt pretty well', I would argue that the timing here is crucial and the clock is running against Obama if he does not rapidly put together a clear and consistent strategy. Trying to appease both sides and hope for the best (business as usual) is not going to work.
Obama, of course, finds himself in a difficult position. His overriding concern is to safeguard so-called US interests in the region and those of its key allies (especially Israel with its border concerns), despite the fact that these 'strategic interests' have not only failed the region miserably but have come back to haunt the US in the shape of Islamist terrorism. Over the weekend we are told Obama consulted his key allies in the region (Jordan, Israel, Saudi Arabia ). One can guess what these so-called allies are advising: hold tight because if Mubarak falls it could bring down the entire regional order and let the Islamists in. While each Middle Eastern state has its own characteristics, the secular-led protests in Tunisia and Egypt have disproved this myth.
This is a pivotal moment in the Middle East and the US dilemma is understandable to some extent (a leap into the unknown). We have no idea what diplomatic moves are taking place behind the scenes but can only hope that they are aimed in the direction of ousting Mubarak while maintaining stability. If the Obama administration fails to grasp this opportunity to push the most populous Arab nation towards democracy and stand by the largely secular-led uprising, America will be well and truly finished in the region, its regional overlords even more illegitimate in the eyes of their citizens, and the Islamists and the Iran axis truly emboldened.
Obama should take note of the open letter signed by American academics and pressure the military to step in, remove Mubarak and oversee the transition to democracy based on consensus (Ijma) among the various opposition groups, which have already signalled their willingness to work together with the aim of forming a representative government.
