If drawing a word picture of the increasingly uncivil unrest in the Middle East – and especially Egypt – the image would be dominated by the words “democracy,” “protest,” “youth,” and “change,” among others. If the on-the-ground reporting and television pictures are to be believed, the one word uniting these themes is “hope.” Specifically, hope in an end to corrupt government that robs people of wealth and ambition, as well as freedom and justice.
Writers of all stripes are focusing on the importance of President Barak Obama’s administration to ‘get it right’ on its position towards the protests in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Algeria, Lebanon, and Jordan. To date, Obama’s only foreign policy precedent in this realm is the lack of solidarity he showed towards pro-reform forces in Iran. Could this week’s much wider conflagration see the implosion of Obama’s claim to be the worldwide symbol of change-hope-youth-democracy-uplift?
The complicating factor in all this is an American strategic interest that supports secular dictators over Islamist radicals. Continuing that choice makes sense if those are the only options, but the remarkable thing about the protests is that Islamist groups (like Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood) are not (yet) at the forefront of the movements. Right now, it seems like most people are rebelling against the type of Mafioso government that keeps vast swaths of citizens repressed.
If nothing else, the knowledge and skill required at this level of foreign policy should serve as a warning to any 2012 presidential contenders (including the man likely to want a second term). In these situations, you only get one chance to make the right decision, so you’d better be prepared.
CFIF on Twitter
CFIF on YouTube