President Obama, who launched his presidency with scorn for his predeces sor’s “freedom agenda,” is now attempting to publicly own and micromanage Egypt’s delicate revolution.
Washington should be in the driver’s seat, helping to steer Egypt toward a form of government America has always cherished. And, sure, tactics must change along with fast-moving events. But when we seem to react to the latest TV broadcast, we risk looking like a dizzy, zigzagging, even dangerous, driver.
Is Mubarak a dictator? No, according to Vice President Joe Biden. Yes, according to all other administration officials.
Must he quit? Yes, as soon as “yesterday,” according to press secretary Robert Gibbs. He should think about his “legacy,” says Obama.
But he should remain in office to maintain stability, according to Obama’s special envoy, Frank Wisner. Then again, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicates that we might be fine if he stays in office but allows Vice President Omar Suleiman to run things.
Until when? Last week, unnamed “senior officials” said elections must take place in three months. Now, Clinton says the long-planned September date might do just fine.
To be sure, administration officials are helping to guide the behind-the-scenes politicking that culminated in yesterday’s crucial closed-door meeting between leaders of Egypt’s budding multiparty system and Suleiman.
In such a backroom atmosphere, the parties can engage in serious negotiations. This is where America should shine. Thanks to our ties with the army, we have more influence over Egypt than any other Arab country. We must use it.
True, America also needs to say some things publicly: Egypt must move to an open system of government, allow free speech and fraternization, protect religious and other minorities, and respect international treaties it has signed. (That last one, referring not only to peace with Israel but also to free movement in the Suez Canal and the Red Sea, is a crucial element that’s so far all but absent from Washington’s public statements.)
But when Mubarak addressed his nation last week during the crisis’ most dramatic moment, trying (and failing) to compromise with his opponents, did Obama need to react on our TV screens? The best readers of ancient Egyptian scripts couldn’t quite make out what he was saying anyway, and Gibbs had to clarify it the next day.
Is Obama seeking a Reaganesque “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” moment? Reagan’s words were rooted in deep convictions about the Cold War. Obama, on the other hand, has come only lately to the idea of spreading American-style democracy to the Arab world.
“No form of government should be imposed by one nation” on another, he said in his famous June 2009 Cairo University speech. After paying lip service to democratic principles, he nevertheless assured his audience that “America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.”
Sure enough, when demonstrators rose up against Iran’s mullahs in the aftermath of a rigged election, Obama stuck with that principle. He let events take their due course without much American interference beyond some (unheeded) statements denouncing violence against peaceful demonstrators. Lebanon, too, was left to its own devices as its pro-democracy forces lost out.
No longer. For years, Washington treated Mubarak as the Mideast’s elder statesman. His advice on regional issues was considered so sage that his TV interviewers always ran out of time before getting to questions about Egypt itself. Now they hurl insults at his dictatorial ways.
While the Tahrir Square crowd and its kin around the Arab world barely listen to our confusing statements, the regional potentates that we may yet need as uneasy allies are taking note. Will they, too, be quickly discarded? America’s prestige in the Arab world is in shambles. We’re not yet liked and no longer feared.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instructed all government officials to avoid public comments. He then delivered one speech at the Knesset, saying Israel supports Arab democracy but will insist that Cairo stick with its peace-treaty obligations. Since then, any Israeli attempt to influence events has been done through back channels.
The Obama administration, which often (rightly) lectures Israel about talking too much about processes that must be dealt with quietly, may want to take note.
beavni@gmail.com