Regime Change in Egypt

The uniqueness of the current situation in Egypt is that no one saw it coming. For more than thirty years Mubarak's regime was portrayed by both friends and foes as stable and strong. The mercilessness with which the regime has been eliminating its opposition, the vast mineral and water resources, and the military might, have all contributed to Mubarak's image as an invincible dictator, yet a reliable ally for the US and the West.

While the West --particularly the US-- has always voiced concern over the regime's tactics and lack of democracy, it has always dealt with it as: "Better the devil you know," and has therefore had little interest in supporting any of Mubarak's opponents.

The current situation has proven this approach above to have been short-sighted. None of so-called experts on the Middle East was able to imagine the Egyptian regime would become so vulnerable to a public uprising. The same shock occurred earlier in Tunisia, where the deposed president, Ben Ali, although more liberal than Mubarak, was ruling his people with an iron fist, as well as "zero tolerance" to opposition.

Today, Obama's administration stands puzzled, reluctant, and much confused about the situation in Egypt. Obama and his advisors know very well that it is not a good idea to bet on a dictatorship once it starts falling; even the USSR could not afford to support the Romanian president, Nicolae Ceausescu, when his people took to the streets against him.

Tolerance of change in Egypt, however, raises serious risks, Carter's tolerance of change in Iran in 1978 brought into existence one of the most rogue states in modern history: a fundamentalist Shiite Islamic "Republic" that is a threat to the US, its allies in the Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, as well as Israel and large swaths of Eastern Europe. As the Muslim Brotherhood is allegedly one of the strongest, most publicly accepted, and best organized forces of opposition; there are serious concerns that the same scenario as Iran might take place in Egypt.

The most vocal and active opposition factions over the last ten years, however, have been non-Islamists. The strongest and most vocal opposition group was Kifayah ["Enough!" in Arabic]. Kifayah is made up of secular and leftists political activists, and has both the Christian cross and the Muslim crescent on its logo. Kifayah's spokesperson in the field with protestors is an Egyptian Christian, George Ishak. The Muslim Brotherhood, outlawed in Egypt, has taken refuge in silence over the past five years especially when it was able to secure a substantial number of seats in the Egyptian parliament.

The Muslim Brotherhood's apparent co-existence with Arab regimes in exchange for some legislative or executive power is nothing new. In Jordan, the Brotherhood traded its support of the Jordanian regime for parliamentary seats and government positions, similarly to Hizballah in Lebanon. Such pragmatism by the Muslim Brotherhood proved more solid than ever when the King of Jordan met with the Brotherhood leaders recently, and even discussed "means of bringing reform through partnership." The King could not be bothered to meet with true non-Islamic opposition leaders: they are less tolerant of the state than the Brotherhood.

Over the last decade, the Muslim Brotherhood has been openly seeking power rather than putting up fights with Arab governments. How would they act if they take over Egypt? Read what they write.

The US has been tolerating dictatorships in the Middle East region for decades, all in the name of "It's the only game in town; there are no other ruling regimes to talk to," and, "If the dictators go away, Islamists will replace them."

We all know that US alliances with dictators have proven fragile, dangerous, and have led the citizens of those countries to hate the US for supporting their oppressors. In addition, the dictators who rule Arab countries spare no efforts in demonizing the US and its allies via their loud, well-financed media, in which they blame the ills of their rule on the US imperialism and "evil Zionists." While Mubarak's regime exhibited no tolerance of criticism made to him or his associates by the media, in 2001, he allowed a TV series entitled A Horseman without a Horse, based on a fraudulent book, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which incorrectly claims that Jews are planning to dominate the world. Mubarak's Embassy officials in the US then told the press that the program was being aired in the name of "Freedom of speech." Freedom of speech, really? One-sided speech is not free speech.

Aside from Arab dictators' efforts to direct their people's hatred towards the US and others in the West, the Arab people -- through Facebook and Twitter -- now realize that probably their dictators would not exist were it not for US support and generous financing. In its most recent report, Human Rights Watch describes Jordanian atrocities against its citizens, including the deprivation of citizenship to thousands of its Palestinian majority. In the same report, Human Rights Watch notes that the United States had a five-year agreement with Jordan to provide it with up to $1 billion annually in aid, in addition to an EU commitment to an annual $310 million aid package. Mubarak's share of US aid money was almost triple that of Jordan's. Such generous aid to an oppressive dictatorship, on which very little goes to the needy people of Jordan, gives them reason to think the US is actually supporting the regime against them, and that therefore the US is the problem, and not their dictator.

The US might like to see pro-Western, democratic Arab governments, and help to direct their efforts to isolate and eliminate radical Islamists; after all a deprived and oppressed people might readily subscribe to radicalism. When, for example the Palestinians were under Israeli rule before 1993, their political tendencies were anti-Israeli, yet not pro-Islamist The Palestinians then were enjoying the fruits of the thriving Israeli economy, and even delighted Israel's freedom of speech. When the Palestinian Authority came into existence, however, bringing with it corruption, poverty, and jailing people who spoke against it, these Palestinians turned toward Islamism and support for Hamas.

The best way to counter Islamic radicalism in the Middle East would be to give the people there democratic institutions -- rule of law, equal justice under law, free speech and property rights, and so forth - and acceptable living conditions: improvements which can never occur under the current regimes. The demands voiced by protesters in Tunisia, Cairo, Amman and Yemen are all, in concept, reasonable and righteous..

While the generous US taxpayers' aid money given to Arab governments ends up financing the dictators' lavish living, this money could work wonders if channeled to the people through establishing more of these democratic institutions of government; they would also defuse the Islamists' notion that "It is all because of the absence of Sharia law" simply by demonstrating that it is "lack of democracy" that is actually causing the people's misery. The challenge would be in nursing the fledgling democracies not to have them hijacked by radicals they way Lenin hijacked the Russian Revolution from Trotsky and Kerensky. Well-funded, highly-motivated buzzards are waiting in the trees.

Related Topics:  Egypt  |  Mudar Zahran receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list