Foreign policy is in many ways a complicated and high stakes-chess game. Every move is carefully planned and every consequence dreadfully considered. Like chess, the available choices for every move are predetermined by the irreversible actions of the past. Given these circumstances, each player must take into consideration the complexities of every remaining piece in order to make the best possible move. But even if we were to consider every likely course of action, our choice remains, at best, a calculated risk—one whose outcome could change the course of history.
Nowhere is this more apparent than with the current conflict in Egypt. The Obama administration, caught largely off guard, is faced with quite the political dilemma. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, oppressive dictator and friend of the United States, faces a possible removal from office due to mass public demonstrations in support of government reform. Such reform, however, threatens to eradicate one of the United States' most strategically important allies. The importance of our response to the situation is a product of a long and complicated history with both Egypt and the Middle East.
Since 1974, Israel has remained one of the United States' strongest allies, and also one of our largest recipients of foreign aid. President Obama will submit to Congress a budget request for 2011 that includes $3 billion of aid to the Jewish state, all of which is budgeted toward the military. This alliance, however, hasn't sat well with the rest of the Arab world, including Egypt, until 1978. It was in this year that the Camp David Accords, under the Carter administration, created a peace agreement between Egypt and the United States. But getting Egypt on board required a financial incentive from the U.S. in the form of aid. Thus, Egypt remains one of our largest recipients of military funding, as evident in the discovery of American-made tear gas used in the current Cairo demonstrations.
In order to gain a better understanding of our relationship with Egypt, I spoke with Jon Pevehouse, a UW-Madison political science professor.
Professor Pevehouse, while recognizing the important role of Israel in Egyptian-U.S. relations, also emphasized Egypt is a ""bridge state of sorts—they link the U.S. to the wider strategic situation in the region.""
They are an ally who we work with on issues ranging from the broader peace process, Lebanon, Yemen and our relations with the Arab world in general,"" Pevehouse stated. ""Remember, when Obama made his famous address to the Arab world early in his presidency, he did it in Egypt. That was not by accident.""
This strategic importance is evident and profound. Egypt is the most populous country in the Arab world, the Arab League headquarters are in Cairo and the state lies in a geographic crossroads between Africa, the Middle East and Mediterranean Europe. This tactical importance, along with our incentive to preserve peace between Israel and Egypt, has led us to appease the transgressions of President Mubarak in pursuit of higher goals. Mubarak has repeatedly imposed religious discrimination, electoral fraud, systematic torture and the suppressions of press freedom while superficially enhancing the power of Egypt's executive branch. Yet one can easily find photos of George W. Bush and Barack Obama sipping tea and acting friendly with Egypt's 30-year leader. Dick Cheney even considers the man, not surprisingly, a ""good friend.""
But to be fair to Cheney, this is actually quite accurate. Despite Mubarak's shortcomings, he has served the United States well. He is, in respect to the foreign policy aspirations of the U.S., a pawn (chess pun intended). We appease his actions because he is an ally—one that is safe, obedient and controllable. And this is certainly not the first time the pursuit of democracy and human rights have been de-emphasized in the quest to maintain relations. One must only look toward our relationships with countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Uzbekistan to realize that the American goal of spreading freedom and democracy is one that is, while certainly legitimate, often inconvenient.
Thus, the current uprising in Egypt leaves us in quite a dilemma. The Obama administration essentially endorsed the removal of Mubarak from office once public will took a turn for the worse. This was a risk, given that if Mubarak was able to maintain power, our betrayal could lead to short-term repercussions. On the flip side, however, lies the United States' greater fear: free and uncontrollable elections. A dictator is sometimes easier to deal with than an unpredictable democracy, especially when such democracy could lead to the institution of extremist Islamic movements.
No such extremist organization has garnered more fear than the Muslim Brotherhood. While the organization's Egyptian faction is opposed to the state of Israel and is certainly not the biggest fan of the U.S., it is not a significant threat. In a recent New York Times opinion article, Scott Atran brought attention to the organization's small number (100,000 out of 80 million Egyptians), their missed opportunities to gain public approval and their refusal to associate with Al-Qaeda.
Professor Pevehouse echoed this sentiment, ""I don't fear the Brotherhood in power in Egypt…If they don't have their act together now, when are they going to? And don't underestimate Arab nationalism contra Islamic fundamentalism.""
According to a NYT article by David Kirkpatrick, Mohamed el-Beltagui, a leader of the Brotherhood, announced they would not put forth a candidate in the event of an election in order to ""rebut Mr. Mubarak's argument to the West that his iron-fisted rule was a crucial bulwark against Islamic extremism.""
Despite this, the United States continues to impose its influence in order to control who comes into power. Although the situation is rapidly evolving, that person appears to be current Vice President Omar Suleiman. Suleiman, who might fulfill Egyptians' need for a symbolic change, appears to be quite similar to Mubarak politically. Because the United States is focused on protecting Israel and establishing a better partnership with the Middle East, it is also attempting to maintain the status quo despite the wishes of the Egyptian public. It is an unfortunate irony that in the pursuit of what the U.S. feels is best strategically, our government attempts to dismantle the very democratic uprising that inspired our own independence.
What the Obama administration should take note of, however, is that the Egyptian people are intelligent, aware and fully capable of directing the course of their own affairs. Our continued disruption exposes the hypocrisy of our position toward Mubarak and will only intensify anti-American sentiment in a politically tumultuous region. Let us hope this is a lesson soon learned, for the future of U.S.-Middle East relations, the safety of Israel and our efforts toward counter-terrorism could very well depend upon the repercussion of our next move.
Miles Kellerman is a sophomore majoring in political science. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
