It’s hard to watch the goings-on in Egypt and not worry that if and when the protesters get their way by driving Hosni Mubarak out of office, their troubles in some respects will have only just begun.
Far be it from me to rain on what has been a truly inspiring parade: having lived and worked in this part of the world since 1997, I have a very good idea of the courage it must have taken for Egyptians to stand up against the only regime that most of them have ever known. In addition, it has been gratifying to see how little violence and destruction have been meted out despite the demonstrators’ well-deserved anger. And this is not to mention the pluralistic flavor that the budding revolution has thus far evinced, attracting as it has a broad cross-section of Egyptian society, including left-wing students, middle-class shopkeepers, and deeply conservative Islamists.
And therein lies my trepidation, for I’ve also been here too long to retain any confidence that – regardless of what happens to Mubarak and his sclerotic administration – Egyptians will be allowed to freely select and independently pursue their own destiny. Their country, after all, has for decades been viewed as a crucial linchpin for the policies of the superpower that ultimately presides over the Middle East, namely the United States.
Were it not for the latter’s bizarre relationship with Israel, a measure of indispensability would not necessarily be a bad thing: after all, various peoples around the world have spent decades trying to attract the attention of Uncle Sam and his 300-odd million consumers. But that relationship informs virtually everything America does in the region, and since 1967, the strategy has been to ensure Israel’s dual ability to militarily dominate its neighbors and diplomatically defy the will of the entire international community (minus America and a revolving coterie of stooges).
Maintaining that level of politico-military imbalance (it is no longer quite so easy for tiny colonies of Europeans to impose their will on native populations of incalculably greater size) is no easy feat, and by some reckonings the so-called “special relationship” with Israel has cost the US government well over $100 billion in direct subsidies alone. Even that figurepales by comparison, however, to the countless other costsmade necessary by Washington’s insistence on keeping the Middle East safe for Zionism. For example, even apart from the enormous expense incurred since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States has long maintained a major military presence in the region, especially the Gulf, and much of the “need” for this disposition of forces stems from the repercussions of Israelis transgressions and American participation therein. In addition, US support for Israel begets a constant flow of negative sentiment that undermines everything from the sales of some American companies to, yes, the stability of “friendly” regimes. All told, the bill easily amounts to several trillion dollars.
If money is no object when it comes to US backing for Israel, it should come as no surprise that similar indifference governs both the rights of indigenous populations and America’s own dwindling credibility as a champion of things like freedom, democracy and justice. The United States meddles shamelessly in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries, and almost always on the side of a decidedly undemocratic status quo – unless, of course, the status quo is not sufficiently detrimental to the interests of the people involved. So it was, for example, that when late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat reached his limit and refused to sign away his people’s future, Washington imposed its own interpretation of the Palestinian Constitution, which held that a prime minister should really be in charge. But when Arafat’s successor was more quiescent than a democratically elected prime minister, the United States didn’t just change its “position” 180 degrees: it also joined Israel in inflicting collective punishment on the electorate and, for good measure, inciting a botched coup d’état that led to the current separation between the West Bank and Gaza.
The Palestinians’ experience with American duplicity is probably more concentrated than that of most Arabs and Muslims, but it is in no way unrepresentative. Across the region, America has made a habit of installing and/or cultivating compromised ruling cliques that will keep a low profile on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And over the past three decades, nowhere has that tactic been more important or (until now) more successful than in Egypt, whose massive population, widespread cultural influence, and proximity toPalestine make it the single greatest prize for any policy of preventing challenges to Israeli hegemony.
Whatever becomes of Mubarak, that status will not go away. The only real inevitability, therefore, is not that the dictator will decamp (although that seems very likely); it is that whoever rules over Egypt will do so in the shadow of US determination to keep Egypt “off the board” when it comesto the struggle over Palestine. In the face of such pressures, the very diversity that has made the anti-Mubarak uprising so refreshing figures also to provide the fault-lines at which America will take aim in hopes of bringing about another subservient government in Cairo. Already we hear “concerns” about the substantial role that the Muslim Brotherhood – easily Egypt’s largest and best-organized opposition movement precisely because it espouses a decidedly non-radical form of fundamentalism – would presumably play in any post-Mubarak government.
I could be wrong, and I sincerely hope that I am, but I see no reason for optimism. For all his pretty rhetoric, US President Barack Obama has given no indication that he is willing (or even seriously inclined) to break with the policies of his predecessors. He remains committed to an untenable equation in which the region’s stability is held hostage to the ability of undemocratic, unpopular, and unrepresentative thugs to remain in power. In so doing, he continues to dash what remain of America’s democratic credentials on a rock of sheer folly, particularly since a surer formula has been within easy reach for years: demand, at long last, that Israel repay some of the myriad gifts and favors lavished on it over the years by agreeing to a full and fair peace.
Marc J. Sirois is an independent analyst in based in Beirut, where he was managing editor of The Daily Star from 2000-2003- and 2006-2009.
