Egypt, Revolution, International Democracy and American Interests

While reading this article I returned to a thought that has been reccuring recently in regard to the current unrest/revolution/democratic freedom movement that has taken place in Egypt over the last 3 weeks. The article gives a brief biography of the new vice-president of Egypt, Omar Suleiman, and how he seems to not only be Mubarak's guy, he's also the CIA's, the state department's, Europe's, the Saudi's AND the Israeli's guy. He's also not very popular with the protesters, seeing as how he has run the intelligence and spy agency since 1993 has has been accused by multiple international organizations of torturing prisoners (including on behalf of the US).

So it seems to me that this isnt really the guy that those who are "pro-democracy" should want. If you are for representative democracy that heeds the will of the people, the last few weeks are about as clear a demonstration that this country wants its leader(s) sacked (I think the images of people fighting with stones, kitchen knives, and pieces of re-bar ripped out of the street are powerful enough).

Unfortunately (or interestingly, from a more objective perspective), Mubarak and Sulieman have entrenched themselves heavily in regional politics and have been major recipients of US and European aid. The Israeli peace process has been based on heavy assistance from Egypt (and thus from Mubarak and his government), and the government there is dependent on Egypt if their blockade of Gaza (and Hamas) is to continue. The Israeli government is heavily invested in the political outcome in Egypt. Let's be clear: the Israeli blockade of Gaza is ridiculous and their government has been acting very badly over the last couple of years. All the more reason for them to prefer the dictator and understudy-to-the-dictator that they know (and can hide behind) to the angry, democratic, and generally anti-isreali mob they don't.

And now we come to the heart of the matter. The fact is, that if the Egyptian people really get a representative democracy, the government of one of the biggest economies, cultural centers, and strongest western allies will become significantly more anti-Isreal and anti-US. One of the main complaints of the protesters is the complicity of Mubarak in the Israeli occupation and the American funding of an oppressive government. And they have every right to be upset! We have been funding an opressive dictator for 30 years! Isreal has been horribly oppressing Palestinians with the help of their government! The situation is reminiscint of the Iranian Revolution (where we had backed the Shah) or a series of Central and South American regimes (where we had also propped up dictators).

So. Morally (ideally), I want to say that the protesters are right, Mubarak and his whole regime need to go, and a real representative democracy should be instated in Egypt. If such a government could become stable we could no longer say that there is only one democracy in the middle east. Given the fact that the military has taken almost a neutral role and kept the security situation reltively stable, and given the relatively strong Egyptian economy, a new regime might get back on its feet sooner than we expect.

Will it be hostile towards Isreal (thus challenging the notion that democracies never go to war) or will it become a second pillar of peaceful secular democracy in the middle east (does Turkey count?) How close will such a government deal with governments like Syria's "president-with emergency powers" and Jordan and Saudi Arabia's "Autocratic Monarchies"? What if we begin to see such revolutions in other countries around the region? How will modern political and philosophical models hold up (of particluar interest to me: John Rawl's non-ideal theory)?

How close will the new Egyptian government want to openly associate itself with the US and Europe? How will the emergence of a representative democracy in one of the most culturally influential countries in the arab speaking world change US foriegn policy? Will congress authorize aid money to a government that is openly or believed to be hostile to Israel and US interests? How stable IS the Egyptian state without the billions of dollars we give them each year?

What about the 2012 presidential elections? I can't wait for someone to accuse Obama of being anti-American for supporting a democratic revolution in Egypt that has endangered the Israeli peace process and embarrassed the Israeli regime.

Still, are the major political and economic powers with interest in the area going to allow a government to form that dramatically changes any of these dynamics? I truly believe that a democratic Egypt will be beneficial in the long run, but I can imagine a very rocky road there. What if a democratic government fails miserably and the security situation in Egypt becomes significantly worse? Again, given the self control and professionalism of the military shown in the last few weeks, I doubt such a situation would happen. But what if the conservative Israeli Government refuses to lift the blockade from their side? Gazan refugees pouring over the Suez? Egyptian tanks in Gaza?

I'm not saying I think this is going to happen, and again I am firmly of the belief that in the case of expanding democracy, short term pain (or chaos) is worth it for long term gain (and stability). But it's certainly an interesting situation that raises a lot of questions, both realpolitikal and philosophical. I guess all we can do is watch and wait.



One thing I do know: if Egypt returns to (relative) stability after elections in september, its going to be a great place to visit by spring next year!

"Buy all the opium in Afghanistan, you say?!"..."Brilliant!"

I once sat on a bus coming back from Strasbourg with a good buddy of mine and we got into a difficult conversation with another American there about the war in Afghanistan. He began his argument with the idea that the US just needed to buy the opium from the farmers in Afghanistan to limit the flow of illicit drug money to the Taliban. So far, so good. It got difficult when he began arguing that the US would then just need to decriminalize opium, could sell it and tax it, thus creating a market for Afghan farmers and funding redevelopment efforts.

An elegant plan, I must say, but one that my friend and I pointed out had a few political hurdles (legalizing opium for one..) and that maybe a more practical plan could be thought of. He was having nothing of it, and insisted that if the US government were to just buy, legalize, and distribute opium, then the war in Afghanistan could be won.

I hadn't thought about this incident for a few months when i came across this article. Seems like there are a few thoughts along the lines of buying the opium from the farmers, and even a pretty good suggestion of what to do with it (hint: not pimping it to Americans). Theres a much more detailed argument here, which also lays out some of the UN hurdles that would have to be jumped if such a plan were to work.

I will say though, that i question the government's ability to control the flow of money between the farmers and the Taliban. Even if we buy the crop the, the Taliban is going to see a percentage of the money we give them as a part of bribery, extortion, and some good old fashioned bullying. Until we can offer the afghan farmers physical protection, i think its going to be hard for them to do business with us legitimately. That being said, it may well be in our interested to buy the opium, accept the inefficiencies and the fact that we're giving the Taliban money, and find a legitimate world market for Afghanistan's major crop.