By Barry Rubin
HERZLIYA, Israel — Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it. And those who don’t know history also smugly say things that have more holes than substance.
Recently, someone responding to an article of mine said it’s a pity I couldn’t share the world’s joy at the uprising in Egypt. That’s precisely the way I feel. But someone has to point out certain problems.
It was a pity that there were a few people, like Edmund Burke and Tom Paine couldn’t share the joy of the people at the revolution in France in 1789 and the downfall of the evil king. Silly people. Everyone was dancing in the streets. And then came the guillotine and a quarter-century of war.
It was a pity that there were a few people who couldn’t share the joy of the people at the revolution in Russia in 1917, the second one especially. At last the evil czar was overthrown! Hooray. Oops. Stalin, concentration camps, the alliance with Nazi Germany that permitted the extermination of most of my family, and 45 years of Cold War.
It was a pity that there were a few people who couldn’t share the joy of the people at the revolution in Iran. I was one of them. I watched while the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was called a saint and someone who would soon retire from politics. I watched as the “real” Iran experts met President Jimmy Carter and assured him that the moderates would take over. Darn! The rise of the revolutionary Islamist movement, the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait, September 11, and so on.
Does this sound familiar?
“The regime of misrule…was rapidly drawing to an end…[The people] went delirious with joy….The Revolution was an unmistakably popular movement….[Muslims marched]to the residence of the Armenian Patriarch to express their fraternal feelings with his community….”
“Everywhere it was proclaimed that the Revolution meant liberty, equality, and fraternity, above all no distinction of men on account of their creed….Speeches were delivered by leading Armenians and Greeks declaring that henceforward it would be possible for the Christians…to cooperate cordially with their Muslim brethren for the benefit of the [country].”
Such was the Young Turk revolution of 1908 in the Ottoman Empire, as described by the British ambassador. The Young Turks then adopted a policy of Turkish nationalism, suppressing other groups. Six years later they went to war. Twenty percent of the population of Anatolia died; hundreds of thousands of Armenians were murdered in cold blood; almost the entire Greek population was expelled.
History doesn’t have to repeat itself—but that won’t happen only if wise people make sure it doesn’t happen.
More millions of people have died as the result of happy revolutions then from any other political cause in the last 100 years.
But I guess I should just shut up and enjoy the celebration. I’m also looking forward to the overthrow of the “dictators” in the West Bank, Jordan, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia! Let’s party! Let the good times roll! Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we…find out that the Muslim Brotherhood is neither moderate nor weak, and ElBaradei is neither moderate nor strong.
Oh, and definitely do NOT read this article about how the Muslim Brotherhood demanded that Egypt develop nuclear weapons back in 2006. The important thing is (sarcasm alert) if you want to understand the Brotherhood you should never read anything it said before last week, and also it will probably never happen.
And don’t listen to the fears of Egypt’s Christians either about their future. What’s the chance they’ll be fleeing for their lives by the thousands? The United States actually managed the change of regime in Iraq and (sarcasm alert) Christians are doing just fine there! Why would anyone possibly want to harm them in a democratic Egypt?
Forget that the American-designated next leader of Egypt says he will end all sanctions on the Gaza Strip so advanced weapons and longer-range missiles can pour into there. Forget that this same person–the moderate, not the Muslim Brotherhood–says the Egypt-Israel peace treaty is void because it was only a deal with Mubarak.
I’m not saying all is lost. All is lost only if people lose their heads. Will the regime survive in some form without Mubarak (it is still there, after all)? Will the army step in and make sure things don’t go too far even after a transition (though it might like a radical regime, especially one that doesn’t purge anyone; pays for its salaries and privileges, and lets it make money from business)? Will strong, popular, more moderate leaders emerge (no sign of them yet)?
The job of a political analyst is not to be a cheerleader or even–sad to say–to have a good time. The task is to ring a very big warning bell so that in the end maybe, as Bob Marley put it so eloquently, “Every little thing gonna be all right.”
The job of journalists is to tell the truth, even if it is unpalatable, not to make the Muslim Brotherhood look pretty and Muhammad ElBaradei seem to be a moderate leader.
The job of policymakers and national leaders is to figure out a strategy that will hopefully help make things turn out as best as possible, first and foremost for their country’s national interests, though humanitarian and moral considerations should also be on the list.
These people can only perform their jobs if they understand the reality from which they are starting. Otherwise, wishful thinking turns into nightmare.
And if I’m wrong I will gladly meet you in Cairo’s Tahrir Square in a couple of years and, my treat, toast the glorious Egyptian democratic revolution with champagne. Assuming it’s still legal there.
*
Egypt: Amateur Hour For U.S. Policy
When the president of the United States talks like this there is something seriously wrong:
“What I want is a representative government in Egypt and I have confidence that if Egypt moves in an orderly transition process, that we’ll have a government in Egypt that we can work with together as a partner.”
This is a rather egocentric way to approach the world by an administration that supposedly is trying to get away from the “old” style of American leadership. “What I want…!” And why should Egypt do what he wants?
But the second part is even worse. It links “an orderly transition process” with “a government in Egypt that we can work with together as a partner.” Let’s look at this closely because I think it does show us the essence of U.S. policy toward Egypt.
Why should the orderliness of the process inevitably produce a good result for U.S. interests? There are assumptions here that have nothing to do with the real Middle East:
–The Egyptian people could not possibly elect an anti-American, radical regime.
Why not? Why can’t a fair election produce an extremist or Islamist or anti-American government? The assumption here is that the “people” can never be radical or hostile to the United States (or maybe, what he means, is that it is impossible Egyptians wouldn’t like him and give him what he wants.)
In fact, knowing Egyptian history, world view, who is well organized, what ideas are likely to appeal to the masses, and politics the Egyptian people could not possibly elect a pro-American, moderate regime.
–Or, conversely, any government resulting from an orderly transition must be one that U.S. policy will work with because America will offer partnership in exchange for nothing at all. Obama said that all the Muslim Brotherhood need do is to eschew violence (why use violence if they are winning anyway) and support democratic goals (what does that mean?). So no matter how subversive of U.S. goals, interests, and allies the new Egyptian government is, Washington will pretend that it is a partner.
Obama seems to believe that the process inevitably produces the result he desires. This shows a lack of seriousness and experience to say the least.
Oh, and by the way, after the president repeatedly called for Mubarak’s instant departure someone in Washington actually read Egypt’s constitution and discovered that if he steps down right now there must be elections within 60 days. Maybe the idea that Mubarak will step down in September after new elections–giving time for organizing parties–might not be a bad idea.
Here are some interesting things to think about:
–The United States is guarantor of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty. If Egypt either formally abrogates the treaty or merely does so in practice, how would the United States respond, given the much higher degree of threat faced by Israel?
–The United States gives almost $2 billion a year in aid to Egypt. Will the United States now fund classrooms, for example, which teach that America is the enemy of Muslims, Arabs, and Egyptians? That Jews are evil and inferior? That every Egyptian Muslim has the duty of engaging in jihad?
–The United States provides Egypt advanced military equipment. Will it continue to do so if Egypt is once again an enemy of Israel, and supplies weapons to Hamas.
And if those issues seem distant, here is Muhammad ElBaradei, the apparent U.S. candidate for president of Egypt, renouncing the peace treaty in an interview with Der Spiegel:
“Something the Israelis also need to grasp is that it’s impossible to make peace with a single man [Mubarak]. At the moment, they have a peace treaty with Mubarak, but not one with the Egyptian people.”
He has just said that there is no binding peace treaty and if the agreement is with a single man, when that man leaves office there is no agreement. He doesn’t have to abrogate the treaty because he says that it doesn’t exist at all. I can only assume that U.S. diplomats have not been instructed to tell ElBaradei that if he doesn’t change his view something bad will happen to his political ambitions.
You know, please forgive me if I put this in a really big font and put it in bold so it sears itself onto that screen behind your foreheads. It will make me feel better. Thanks:
U.S. POLICY IS PUSHING INTO POWER A MAN SAYING THE ISRAEL-EGYPT PEACE TREATY ISN’T VALID AND REJECTING SANCTIONS ON HAMAS’S REGIME IN THE GAZA STRIP
Might this be a problem?
As an historian I feel obligated to say that the treaty actually was not made with Mubarak but his predecessor, Anwar al-Sadat, which shows that neither the passage of decades nor the acceptance of the deal by two Egyptian presidents has any effect on institutionalizing or legitimizing it.
It seems that whenever Israel makes an agreement, gives up territory, and takes risks, the other side finds some reason—once it has swallowed the concessions—to say that the deal doesn’t count.
Can you imagine Israel agreeing to a Palestinian state and yielding more territory with the prospect of being told after some years that the treaty was only an agreement with a single man, Mahmoud Abbas?
**
Egypt: The new myths
Nothing is more fashionable than hindsight. Here are some myths forming this week.
1. New myth: Egypt proves that stability doesn’t work.
Let’s see: The Egyptian regime has lasted 59 years and is still in power as I write. Sounds relatively stable to me. The U.S.-Egypt alliance has now lasted about 22 years. It was a successful policy even if it is going to end now.
Yes, things change but the fact that a strategy or policy doesn’t succeed permanently does not mean it was a failure. For another example, consider the Israel-Turkey alliance.
2. Mubarak’s downfall was inevitable.
Well, he’s still president as I write this. What was inevitable is that an 82-year-old man is not immortal and he will not remain mortal that much longer either. Just because there are demonstrations in Cairo calling for the regime to fall doesn’t mean that the regime must or will fall.
Ask the Iranian regime about that one.
Incidentally, Tunisian President Ben Ali was 75 when he was overthrown; Mubarak is 82. Old dictators need to give way to younger dictators. Look at Syria, when Hafiz al-Assad prepared well for his departure from the scene. And now young Bashar is doing just fine.
3. The Egyptian upheaval shows that the United States should not support so many dictators.
Can you name any dictators the United States supports now in the Middle East? How about South America? We are no longer in the 1980s. U.S. policy around the world supports remarkably few dictatorships. Of course, all the regimes on the other side, America’s enemies, are dictatorships.
4. Being in power moderates revolutionary Islamist movements.
Can you name any? Because there is a list of examples to disprove this claim.
5. All problems in the world are Israel’s fault.
Why bother to answer that one, the people who believe it won’t listen any way.
6. All problems in the world are the fault of the United States.
If you hear this then you’re probably sitting in an American university class, or even an elementary school class. Or reading an editorial in a major U.S. newspaper, in this case the Washington Post:
“It’s worth remembering what has led to the rise of Islamic extremism and anti-American rage in the Middle East. Arabs see Washington as having supported brutal dictatorships that suppress their people. They believe that it ignored this suppression as long as the regimes toed the line on American foreign policy.”
It is hard to remember what is a fabrication. On one hand, which “brutal dictatorships” has the United States supported? I can only think of two possible countries in that category: the shah’s Iran and Sadat-Mubarak Egypt. But wait!
What about all the “brutal dictatorships that suppress their people” that the United States opposed? Qadhafi/Libya, Nasser/Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Iraq/Saddam Hussein, Islamist Iran, Gaza/Hamas. There are far more brutal dictatorships that suppress their people that were anti-American.
Did the United States get any credit for its opposition to these regimes among the masses? No. And there’s more: The anti-American regimes are more brutal than the pro-U.S. ones. In Hama in 1982 the Syrian government murdered between 10,000 and 30,000 civilians. The Iraqi dictatorship murdered tens of thousands of Kurds.
It is understandable that Usama bin Ladin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blame America for everything. Why should Americans echo those lies?
Here’s one example: The anti-American Nasser sent Muslim Brotherhood leaders to concentration camps, tortured them and executed them. Sadat let the Brotherhood function again, in practice if not legally. Sure, he and Mubarak arrested and harassed Brotherhood members but who was really brutal?
The problem is that Western elites expect gratitude for being nice and attribute hostility to something they must have done. The ideology, search for a scapegoat, and outright demagoguery of your enemies dictate their attitudes toward you.
I’m starting to wonder whether Western media and intellectual elites are too dumb to survive.
7. This is the State Department’s fault.
Absolutely not. It’s the White House’s fault. At the State Department, whatever its shortcomings, they still understand diplomacy: maintain credibility; take into account cultural differences; ensure deterrence; find out what’s going on before you jump in; act privately and quietly; and don’t tell a beleagured ally:
You’re fired! Now pack your bags and get out! Oh, by the way, on second thought, please ensure a smooth transition!
*
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. The GLORIA Center’s site is http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.
Egypt: Old Myths and New Myths