"Which
Side Are You On?/They say in Harlan County/There are no neutrals
there./You'll either be a union man/Or a thug for J. H. Blair."
--Florence Reece, "Which Side are You On?" 1931
The
interesting news was not that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was
pelted with stuff while visiting Cair, the important issue was who was
doing the pelting. Once upon a time, anti-American radicals threw things
at U.S. leaders. But now….
Reportedly,
the hurlers of objects were people from the Free Egyptians Party and
other Egyptian liberals. At the same time, leading Christians, including
Naguib Sawiris who is the man behind that party and perhaps the most
outspoken
anti-Islamist figure in Egypt today, refused to meet with Hillary.
Why?
Because these people see the Obama Administration as an ally of the
Muslim Brotherhood. That might sound far-fetched to the mainstream media
(though not to you, dear readers) but it is taken for granted in much
of the Middle East. In the articles of liberal Arabs; the statements of
Persian Gulf Arab establishment figures; the conversations of Syrian,
Turkish, Iranian, and Lebanese oppositionists, the idea that the U.S.
government is now helping the Islamists is taken for
granted.
Let me repeat that: It is taken for granted.
So
it is the liberals, the democrats, the moderates who now view America
as their enemy. Yet supposedly the U.S. policy is promoting moderation
and democracy, right?
These
critics have a strong case. Obama’s Cairo speech was precisely about
encouraging Middle Easterners to redefine their identity from a national
one—principally Arab—to an Islamic one. Obama invited the Brotherhood
to sit in the front row. And when the upsurge in Egypt began and the
State Department wanted to support continuity along with reform, the
Obama Administration demanded the end of the regime.
Next,
without anyone asking him, Obama said the United States wouldn’t mind
if the Brotherhood became the government of Egypt. And more recently, of
course, he has supported the Brotherhood against the army, demanding
that the military turn over power right away, or else.
And
in Syria, the Obama Administration backed a Brotherhood-dominated
leadership in the Syrian National Council. Islamist Turkey was the ideal
country from the White House standpoint, with Obama lavishing praise
and almost never criticizing it for
becoming pro-Hizballah, pro-Hamas, pro-Iran, pro-Islamist in Syria, and
fanatically anti-Israel. And in Bahrain, the Obama Administration was
ready to back a revolution putting (Shia) Islamists in power until the
State Department stopped it.
"I want to be clear that the United States is not in the business, in Egypt,” says Clinton, “of choosing winners and losers, even if we could, which, of course, we cannot."
Wrong!
While of course Islamists won elections in Egypt and Tunisia (but maybe
lost in Libya), the Obama Administration has been working to pick the
winners and losers. The winners: revolutionary, antisemitic Islamists;
the losers: old regimes and liberal oppositionists.
Is
it really the West's duty to help push a radical Islamist government
into power in Egypt as fast as possible?
True, the Brotherhood won the parliamentary election but the election
was invalidated. By who? Ah, one might expect a leading American
newspaper to know that fact. Here's the Los Angeles Times editorial on the subject:
"To
some extent, the military's power — along with economic realities — may
have inclined [Egyptian
President Muhammad al-] Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood to a more
pluralist and moderate course. But if the generals overplay their hand,
they will lose popular support and antagonize Egypt's allies, including
the United States, which provides the military with $1.3 billion a year
in assistance. Both Congress and the Obama administration have put the
generals on notice that those funds are in jeopardy if the transition to
democracy is thwarted. An attempt to shut down a reconvened parliament
would be interpreted inside and outside Egypt as just such an
obstruction."
Let's list the points made here:
--The
Muslim Brotherhood has become more pluralist and moderate. Why? Because
of the military's power and economic realities. How is this logical?
You mean that the military's pressure on the Brotherhood has made it
more moderate? So by that argument if the military ceased its pressure
and turned over government to the Brotherhood then the Brotherhood would
be more radical. Yet that is precisely what the Los Angeles Times and
much of the media and the Obama Administration is advocating!
How
has the economic situation made the Brotherhood more moderate?
Presumably because it needs to be so in order to keep Western aid and
investment flowing. But both of these factors will be insufficient to
help Egypt avoid a crack-up. Then comes the time for demagoguery.
Moreover, the bottom line here is to claim that the Brotherhood can be
bought off. Like Iran's regime, Syria's regime, Saddam Hussein, and
others were bought off?
--If
the generals try to limit or keep the Muslim Brotherhood out of power
they will become less popular. Well, maybe that is so. But popularity
isn't the most important thing in the region. That's an American
obsession, not one from Arab politics.
--The
United States doesn't like the military's policy and will punish the
army (cutting off aid?) if it doesn't surrender. That's a terrible
policy. Talk about empowering your enemies and bashing your friends! Why
should the United States be the new patron of the most dangerously
anti-American group in the world? I know. Because the Obama
Administration believes that will make the Brotherhood more moderate.
Yet even the Obama Administration has seen that this tactic didn't work
with Iran, Syria, Hamas, or Hizballah. Why should it work this time?
Then there are two extremely important points the editorial doesn't tell you, and you won't see in many places:
First,
let's remember that the parliamentary election was not invalidated by
the army but by the Egyptian courts. Judges have been among the most
courageous dissidents in Egypt. Many of them spoke out against the
Mubarak regime and they are not the clients of the army but an
independent force in their own right. So if you want to exalt the rule
of law, you should support the military in trying to enforce a legally binding decision by two Egyptian courts.
Second, the left and liberal forces are largely boycotting the
attempt to revive the parliament illegally because they fear the Muslim
Brotherhood's monopoly on power. Have you noticed that moderate support
for anti-army demonstrations has dwindled away now? It is the
Brotherhood that is going up against the armed forces, though leaving
the door open for a deal.
PS:
The head of Israel's military intelligence has said that Israel's army
has stopped a dozen attempted cross-border attacks in Sinai. This is of
extraordinary significance since it shows a full-scale offensive is
underway and not just the two attacks previously
implemented.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
--
No comments:
Post a Comment