US 'Orderly Transition' in Egypt Really 'Business as Usual' in Disguise

[unhappycamper]

President Obama listens to Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak on Sept. 1 in Washington. Washington's response to the Egyptian uprising has repeatedly invoked the language of moderation, order and stability. Such language encourages protesters to accept incremental reforms in place of the peaceful democratic revolution that ordinary Egyptians have created and sustained. The call for orderly transition and managed reform is, in fact, a call for more of the same.


US 'Orderly Transition' in Egypt Really 'Business as Usual' in Disguise
by Asli Bali and Aziz Rana
Published on Friday, February 4, 2011 by Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF)

As the Mubarak regime turns to violence in a vain attempt to repress the peaceful protests that have swept Egypt's streets for over ten days, the risks associated with current U.S. strategy for Egypt and the wider region continue to grow. In its response to the events, the Obama administration has subtly shifted its message, incrementally increasing pressure on the regime over the last week. But the more important story is the remarkable continuities reflected in the administration's approach.

Indeed, Washington's response has departed little from its original script. This script involves repeatedly invoking the language of "moderation" and order and stability. Such language defends a wait-and-see approach and encourages protesters to accept incremental reforms in place of the peaceful democratic revolution that ordinary Egyptians have created and, against all odds, sustained. The call for orderly transition and managed reform is, in fact, a call for more of the same.

This approach - including any U.S. backed effort to remove Mubarak while retaining the larger regime through the new Vice President Omar Suleiman - is no longer viable. Nor is a belated demand for an end to violence sufficient. A definitive break from the scripts of stability and moderation and a reorientation of American policy toward Egypt -and the broader region - around the democratic aspirations of protesters is the only way forward.

Resort to the language of order, stability, incrementalism, and moderation is hardly new and existed well before the events of last week. Not only is it consistent with the basic stance that the Obama administration has taken toward the Middle East from the very outset, but it reflects the long trajectory of American practices in the region, which have depended on shoring up Arab authoritarians who are willing to serve in an American "axis of moderation." The members of this axis -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan -- have displayed little in common other than a commitment to sustaining current U.S. foreign policy priorities - on Israel/Palestine, the containment of Iran, and access to oil. What they pointedly do not share is any tangible commitment to actual moderation - understood as an internal project of democratization or political openness. This latter fact has been powerfully exposed by the nonviolent demonstrations across the region, and, as in the case of Egypt, the increasingly brutal response such protest has elicited from "moderate" allies.

At the heart of American support for such autocrats is a false opposition between chaos and order, with many in Washington arguing that the only way to avoid pervasive regional violence is to maintain the status quo. But rather than calling for stasis, the United States now has a chance both to vindicate its rhetoric of democracy and in the process to produce a more lasting and stable regional peace. The events of the recent weeks underscore that long-term stability can neither be provided from the outside nor afforded to regimes that are best characterized by their willingness to advance Western preferences at the expense of repressing the preferences of their own citizens. If U.S. interests lie with a stable regional order, such a goal actually requires realigning American goals with those of local players deemed legitimate by their own people. This might mean building strategies around allies that cannot always be counted on to toe an American line.

[blindpig]

1. And the thing is that it ain't gonna work.

The only people to be fooled by this jive are American liberals, certainly not the Egyptian people.

k&r

[Ghost Dog]

2. Not most other North Africans, nor Europeans, either,

from what I can see, talking to people, from here.

[malaise]

3. The truth is that the contradictions of the socio-economic and

political system promoted by the US have all been exposed.
The entire system will be overturned as more and more people understand the game.

Can the President of the country that talks democracy and practices greed and self interest tear down the system?

Systems are overthrown by grassroots movements - not those at the top. The US, other Western powers, Israel, and the establishment in Egypt may well wish to continue business as usual but today is day 12 of the movement to remove the entire regime.

Even anti-democratic attacks on the protesters aren't working.

For Obama to act decisively against 'the system' that keeps America in charge would require that he deliver a Castro or Chavez type speech on exploitation and corruption by the West in the Middle East. He would have to present a WikiLeaks expose on the nastiness that is neo-liberalism and neo-con philosophy.

It is not going to happen. Never in history have the establishment overthrown their own system. Luckily they never fail to sow the seeds for their own demise. Let's thank them for the amazing advances in technology which are facilitating change.

The Egyptian people are showing us the way.

[KG]

4. word.