Playing catch-up ball: 5 steps the U.S. should consider taking with Egypt

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Tuesday, February 1, 2011 - 11:23 AM Share

Here's are some recommendations by an Egyptian friend of mine who writes a good blog, Underreported, about the media and the Middle East. You might want to bookmark that.

By Yasser El-Shimy
Best Defense Cairo bureau chief

The Obama administration has consistently chosen to overlook all the signs pointing to imminent instability in Egypt. The mountain of grievances and exasperation Egyptians have was overlooked in favor of the more illusory notion of stability. When a popular revolution finally started to sweep Egypt, the White House wasted a lot of time stressing Mr. Mubarak's "stability" and "friendliness." This ambivalent attitude enraged many Egyptians who viewed the United States as the guarantor of their tormentor's survival. Photos of American-made tear-gas canisters and rubber bullets used heavily against peaceful protesters were all over social networks. Secretary Clinton's statements on Sunday calling for an "orderly transition" were a step in the right direction, but were alas drowned in the midst of all previous unhelpful comments.

To be sure, it is not all grief for America in Egypt. The protesters are overwhelmingly secular and demand a civilian, secular, and democratic state. There is no genuine threat of an Islamist takeover. Egyptians also seek better living conditions, a functioning economy, employment and political representation. These aspirations do not betray any proclivity to delve into costly foreign wars or hand the country over to bearded politicians. This would seem to be the fulfillment of America's democratization agenda for the Arab Middle East. This strategic reconfiguration could usher in an era of democratic stability, peace and weakened fundamentalism.

Here are five steps Washington should take to expedite the Mubarak regime's inevitable demise, and allow a transitional government to lead Cairo into democratic elections:

1) Declare America's unconditional support for the demands of Egyptian protesters, and recognition of a transitional national unity government to-be set up by the opposition. Mubarak is a dead man walking, and the sooner America sides with the winning side, the better it serves its own interests, and realizes its actual ideals. The United States must unequivocally side with the Egyptian people in their revolt. If this revolution fails, Mubarak will rule Egypt a la Saddam Hussein's Iraq and his influence and that of his state will be substantially diminished. It will not be long before another revolution or coup, perhaps less secular and less democratic, overthrows him or his successor from office.

2) Suspend all aid that directly benefits Hosni Mubarak and his cronies, while offering shipments of medical aid through the Red Crescent to all the injured protesters. This step should further weaken the Egyptian dictator, and offer an olive branch to the Egyptians who are currently suspicious of Washington's duplicity in keeping Mubarak in power.

3) Declare Washington's interest in forging a special friendship with the Egyptian people, offering to advise on (and potentially fund) education, infrastructure, technology, research and development, healthcare, etc. Egypt will be in a very grave economic condition, when Mubarak leaves, and will be grateful for all the help it can receive. The police force has reportedly orchestrated widespread acts of vandalism of public and private properties to spread panic among the population. The Egyptian stock market and many foreign investments are doomed for a few years to come. The government will be hard-pressed to meet the expectations of the population in light of the damage the Mubarak regime inflicted on the country prior to its departure and the flight of foreign capital.

4) Offer a free three month supply of wheat. Bread to Egyptians is the essential food staple that they cannot do without. Egyptians will be grateful if Washington helps stabilize food supplies at this critical juncture.

5) Warn regional governments against intervening in Egypt's domestic politics on the side of the Mubarak regime. Arab dictatorships are invested in Mr. Mubarak's survival, as they fear a democratic wave that could sweep them from power as well. Israel is also worried about the future of its peace treaty with its southern neighbor. Of the two, Arab capitals have a stronger cause for concern.

These measures should not only ensure a friendly Cairo-Washington relationship for the foreseeable future, but should ensure the establishment of a sustainable alliance that serves both countries' interests.

Yasser El- Shimy, a former diplomatic attaché at the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, lectures in U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East at the Catholic University of America.

KHALED DESOUKI/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:ARAB WORLD, EGYPT, GUEST BLOGGER, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

(6)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

JPWREL

5:46 PM ET

February 1, 2011

Yasser El-Shimy, is as wrong

Yasser El-Shimy, is as wrong as wrong can be on five of his six suggestions. The United States should immediately subscribe to one of El-Shimy’s ideas and announce a no strings attached emergency food aid program for Egypt and then shut-up. Henry Kissinger this morning on Bloomberg was right as rain in that the USA does not need to do a lot of talking, advising and cajoling right now – we need to be silent and step back out of the way. We should observe how the Egyptian people themselves begin sorting things out without our self-interested commentary or unsolicited advice. There will be plenty of opportunity later to poke our fingers into their business.

HUCKLEBERRY

7:33 PM ET

February 1, 2011

Why not?

Why not a clear and simple statement of 1, 3 & 5 and then shut up?

Granted, I like #4 best, too. Ironically, El-Shimy's proposal sounds like something out of RN/HK's own playbook (c. 1972)

CNN has reported that there are already fears of food shortages. Moreover, a spike in crude will push food prices even higher. But why not then quietly propose a long-term agreement?

This could be a (rare) opportunity for Obama to act both morally and expediently:

Food for hungry people (check).

Current high wheat prices benefitting US farmers locked into agreement (check)

Blunting food insecurity fears eases panic buying and price inflation (check)

Ties US wheat-producing states to new Egypt policy (check)

Make it harder for nihilistic GOP-ers to derail: Top four wheat-producing states are red states: Kansas, North Dakota, Montana, Oklahoma (check. check, check, check)

There has to be a flaw in all this that I am missing, because it seems far too easy to be a win all-around...

GRANTM

10:32 PM ET

February 1, 2011

Or he's mostly right

@JPWREL
You seem to suggest that the US should simply sit back and watch as if we are not already in the middle of events. For better or worse, the US is already thickly involved in Egyptian politics, and pretending we can just watch is fantasy. The question is how should we be involved going forward. And Mr. El Shimy is simply suggesting a more ethical and practical way forward. While I may not agree with every single point, I certainly agree that the US must be involved going forward.

ZATHRAS

5:16 PM ET

February 2, 2011

This isn't playing catch-up ball

The quoted post here advocates two-fisted American support of everything a certain faction of the opposition to Mubarak wants, and a swerve toward open hostility toward a government American officials were describing as a valued ally scarcely a week ago.

I certainly understand Mr. El-Shimy's desire for America to be both the muscle and the banker for the movement to oust the Mubarak government; I'd not only be pleased if opportunities arose for American support of and cooperation with a post-Mubarak government, I expect this to happen. We should nonetheless be able to distinguish what is in America's interest with the agenda of political factions in other countries.

SHARPR

7:03 PM ET

February 1, 2011

The writer presents a good

The writer presents a good case for going "all in" with the anti-Mubarek reform movement, but for the US it comes down to what does it want out of the situation and the wider trend toward poverty-driven reforms, particularly those in states it depends on regionally?

There is the standing policy to defer to the status quo while diplomatically encouraging reforms, which the Obama administration appeared to echo in its intial statements on the Egyptian protests. The Arab world of today has stability but one that hangs on the complacency of a growing urban generation that finds its economic opportunities stifled and/or denied, while living with nascent religious groups/movements that provide an outlet for the deeply disaffected. This world has largely remained the same for a generation, and the US (and Israel) know the dynamics. Hosni Mubarek probably won't last the year, if that long. If the US, already seen as propping Mubarek up as recently as this last weekend, remains consistent in calling for elections this summer to replace Mubarek with an unknown and largely non-existent majority opposition party, will protestors see this as stalling for Mubarek in spite of their demands that he leave now? Is Washington risking a reception of "too little, too late" if it drags its heels with the protestors?

There is the option of expressing full support, through words and actions. But depending on the political environment, that can be risky for US interests (see: Palestinian elections 2006; Pakistani elections 2008). The wind seems to be blowing towards reform in country after country, and long-time allies seem next. The danger for the US is in being seen as manipulating or interfering in these movements when they are either not representative of the majority or a result of US action. Lessons of Iraq and Afganistan are obvious. Recent history in Lebanon is a case in point, where the 2006 invasion by Israel boosted Hizb'allah's presence and furthered the factionalism, in spite of a strong anti-Syrian movement opposed to Hizb'allah's presence and Syria/Iran's influence. Five years later, Lebanon is politically deadlocked, economically crippled, and has a similar schism between the majority poor and the wealthy elite. Egypt under Mubarek is partly a product of a time when "strong men" Arab leaders, coming out of the Arab-Israeli wars of the 50's, 60's and 70's, remained in power, in many cases under unending military rule. If these leaders are removed by reform-minded urban classes, what will the new Middle East look like with the bulwarks of the Arab-Israeli wars no longer in place? How many allies could the US lose/gain? What will Israel's future look like? Is a Mubarek-less Egypt "better" for Bibi? If the Muslim Brotherhood's party gained a larger presence in a new legislative body and government, would that government be lukewarm or opposed to a relationship with the US and/or Israel under today's terms?

The US is walking the tight rope. But the opportunity to fully back the protestors "against" Mubarek is there, and the potential implications that could have for regional relations are huge. What message does Amman take (already) from the cautious message out of D.C. for Mubarek to relinquish power? Or Riyadh? Tel Aviv? Should King Abdullah expect the US to leave him hanging if a large number of protestors walk in the streets of Amman? Should Bibi start massing soliders on the Sinai in case the US permits the Muslim Brotherhood to stand for elections sometime this year or should he breath a sigh of relief at these events?

Even if the outcome isn't certain in Egypt or elsewhere, are US interests and Israeli security better served by reform or the status quo leaders who continue to honor peace accords with Israel and provide aid to US efforts in various ways, but are also reviled by most of their people, particularly the growing urban poor and youth, for their oppressive rule? Is its better to go with the "devil" you know than the one your don't, knowing that either choice is high risk/high reward? That's the question for Washington as the Mid-East transforms.

SOLDIERSDIARY

8:47 PM ET

February 1, 2011

advice

If I were Mubarak, I would pull a Costanza, ignore the protests and just keep showing up for work, even though nobody wants me there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnofMbHgHfc&feature=related