Its has been awhile since I have written on this blog, but if there was ever a time to highlight history, it is today February 3, a day where a potential Arab Tiananmen Square is occuring in Tahrir Square, in Cairo.
Over 1 million protestors came out in Cairo, and several thousands in Alexandria, to protest the repression of President Hosni Mubarak on Tuesday's march of a million. It is essential to note that these protests are about issues of freedom and democracy, including both secular and religious opposition, men and women, rich and poor. This is NOT a purely religious opposition to a ruling government, so why is western discourse focused on equating arab nationalism/revolution with Islamic fundamentalism?
Slavoj Zizek writes on this very issue in the Guardian. He asked this question and answered it most profoundly:
"The hypocrisy of western liberals is breathtaking: they publicly supported democracy, and now, when the people revolt against the tyrants on behalf of secular freedom and justice, not on behalf of religion, they are all deeply concerned. Why concern, why not joy that freedom is given a chance? Today, more than ever, Mao Zedong's old motto is pertinent: "There is great chaos under heaven – the situation is excellent."
"Where, then, should Mubarak go? Here, the answer is also clear: to the Hague. If there is a leader who deserves to sit there, it is him."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/01/egypt-tunisia-revolt
The veteran Middle East expert, and my thesis advisor, Professor William Quandt, made this argument in an opinion peace on politico today: "As things now stand, it is possible to imagine a new Egypt without Mubarak, governed by a coalition of forces very much in touch with the tenor of the crowds on the street. They are demanding greater freedom, democracy, dignity and better economic opportunity – not an Islamic state, not death to Israel, not hostility to America."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48678.html
On another note, the title of this article is "Time for Obama to push Mubarak." Admittely, Middle East experts are torn over the Obama administration's reaction to the events in Egypt. While I agree with Professor Quandt, other experts like James Baker have adopted the realist discourse, arguing that "You've got to weigh principles and values on the one hand and national interest on the other. And, it would have been terrible, in my view, if on the first day of this Obama and Secretary of State [Hillary] Clinton had totally pulled the rug out from under Mubarak. That would send a horrible message to other countries in the region about being allied with the United States. They've handled it reasonably well."
http://www.cfr.org/africa/egypt-textbook-foreign-policy-dilemma/p23984?cid=soc-twitter-in-mideast-egypt_textbook_foreign_policy_dilemma-020111
Yet, the official Obama administration statements seem nothing short of reactionary. As events worsened today in Tahrir Square with over 1,500 injured according to Aljazeera English, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs did little but reassure American support for a peaceful transistion and the continued call for restraint on both side....BOTH SIDES? The anti-government demonstrators, over a million of them, were implementing their human right to freedom of expression in an entirely peaceful manner until today, when the "pro-government supporters," which many news sources claim are merely Mubarak thugs and policemen in plain clothes, attacked them in Tahrir Square.
Only recently, as shown on Aljazeera, has Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for a peaceful transistion of power NOW. subtle diplomatic hint pushing Mubarak to step aside NOW. Yet, these calls seem too little too late after today's violence, and especially after the purposeful targeting of journalists by government forces, in a feeble and disgusting attempt to prevent the news of this atrocity spreading throughout the world.
After following tweets from Egypt all day, around 20,000 new tweets every few seconds, this attempt to smash freedom of expression was proven futile. Journalists on the New York Times, the BBC, the Guardian, Aljazeera, and many other news sources, kept the public informed minute by minute as the situation deteriorated in Tahrir Square.
The Guardian is now headlining with 3 injured and over 1,500 injured today alone in Tahrir Square. Is this so surprising after Mubarak's speech last night? While he offered concessions in constitutional reforms and kindly offered to not run in the next elections, he began his speech by highlighting how political elements had "manipulated" the protestors, while also threatening to punish the thugs and looters who were involved in the protest....reading between the lines...government crackdown is on the way. Thus, when I woke up this morning to stories of policemen dressed in plain clothes clashing with anti-government protestors, I was sadly not suprised.
Obama's speech was also less than compelling. He highlighted American support for democratic values and peaceful protests, and yet mentioned nothing about the censorship of the media and restoring the internet in Egypt(though this did occur today). Furthermore he emphasized how this was up to the Egyptian people and that it was not American policy to influence the selection of leaders in other countries(since when has this not been American policy?) Why are we acting like we are an insignificant country that cannot influence events? Egypt is the second largest recipient behind Israel of US foreign aid(fourth, if you include Afghanistan and Pakistan). We have backed Mubarak for the last 30 years for very compelling geopolitical reasons(peace with Israel and the Suez Canal come to mind), yet now that the people are expressing the values that we claim to hold so dear, freedom and democracy, we suddenly have a hands off, cautious, foreign policy towards Egypt?
I understand the predicament of the Obama administration and the delicacy of diplomacy, but I only ask why we can't hear a little more of the truth. For example, as cited by the BBC, at a press conference, when asked if President Obama considers Mr Mubarak a dictator, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says: "The administration believes that President Mubarak has a chance to show the world exactly who he is by beginning the transition that is so desperately needed by his country."
Is it too much to ask for a truthful answer? They should say YES, and he needs to step aside and listen to the Egyptian people!!
