Revolutions, when they come, can come suddenly. A mere month ago, Egypt was neither more nor less a tinderbox than it had been for the last thirty years or so. The fact that the conditions for massive political upheaval were there did not make it imminent because they had always been there. But now Egypt is on the brink and its future is terrifyingly uncertain.
When the Tunisian Government fell in the face of popular unrest at the beginning of the year experts were almost unanimous in saying the same would not happen in Egypt. It was not that ordinary Egyptians did not have the same grievances. They most certainly did. They too lived under an authoritarian regime which for decades seemed uninterested in their needs. They too endured extremes of poverty and wealth. They too suffered massive unemployment which, for an increasingly young population, served as a block on marriage, settling down and leading an ordinary life. But, we were told, the Egyptian people were too cowed to revolt. Despite these grievances, the Mubarak regime would manage to keep the lid on things through a combination of minimal concessions and maximum intimidation.
But that’s not how things have turned out. The world has now witnessed almost two weeks of sustained defiance by protestors in Tahrir Square in Cairo, in Alexandria, in Suez and throughout the country. And the protestors have already transformed the country’s political future. President Mubarak has said he won’t contest the next presidential election and will leave office in September. His son, Gamal, widely believed to have been groomed for the succession, will not now be a candidate. The new vice-president has offered to open talks with the until-now banned Muslim Brotherhood opposition. And, crucially, the army has acknowledged the legitimacy of the protests against the Mubarak regime, refusing, up to now, to use force against the protestors.
Yet, as I write, there is deadlock, and a frightening one. Anything could happen. It is possible that President Mubarak will succumb to the protestors’ basic demand and resign now rather than wait till September. The jubilant protestors might then disperse and a new, peaceful era emerge as the army and the opposition negotiate a new future for Egypt. But it is just as possible that violence between those supporting the regime and those protesting against it will escalate, that there will be a bloodbath on a scale not yet seen, that the army will be forced to intervene, that it might even split and that chaos and bloodshed will engulf the country.
Where should we in the West stand in all this? Some have accused western governments, and most especially the United States, of being two-faced and hypocritical. The Obama administration, and most European governments including Britain’s, have taken the side of the protestors and all but called on Mubarak to go now. Yet for thirty years, the West supported a regime known to be an undemocratic police state which oppressed its people through a network of police spies and the use of torture. During President Bush’s policy of ‘rendition’, Egypt was one of those helpful countries ready to receive terrorist suspects who it was thought needed a bit of roughing up during interrogation.
Defenders of American policy towards Egypt argue, however, that this is only half the story. Foreign policy is about balancing needs that are often conflicting. It may well be, they say, that Egypt under President Mubarak flouted the principles of human rights America claims to wish to see upheld in the world, but his regime was a vital force for order and stability in a region that desperately needs it. In particular, they argue that Mubarak’s steadfast commitment to the peace treaty his predecessor, Anwar Sadat, signed with Israel in the 1970s, has helped keep the peace in the Middle East throughout his time in office. Egypt’s pre-eminence among Arab countries has ensured this and, given the west’s dependence on oil from the region, this has been a huge boon.
What, then, should the West want now? The whole tenor of western media coverage of the events of the last fortnight has been to side with the protestors in their struggle for a new and better life. This is, perhaps, the natural response to images of an oppressed people trying, against the odds, to liberate themselves. But some commentators are arguing we should take a more cautious view.
Their argument is that the protestors have already achieved a great deal and should settle for what they have got, the departure of Mubarak in the autumn and an orderly transition worked out in the meantime. To go on pressing for the immediate overthrow of the regime risks too much, they argue. President Mubarak, who claims in any case to be ‘fed up’ and wanting to leave office, argues that if he went now there would be ‘chaos’ and there is reason to think he may be right. What, for instance, would the network of police informers and paid thugs do if they saw their livelihoods about to disappear? Would they not take to the streets themselves and incite a further wave of violence as the only way of protecting their interests?
Then there is the issue of who would take over the Government. Optimists hope that negotiations between the army and opposition figures, such as Mohammed el-Barradei, the Nobel prize-winner and former head of the UN Atomic Energy Authority, could produce a stable, reforming government. But waiting in the wings is the Muslim Brotherhood. Some see the Brotherhood as the underground opposition which, if it were brought into government, would be more than ready to sustain Egypt’s secular government. But others see it is wanting to turn Egypt into an Islamic state and regard its virulent anti-Israeli, even anti-Semitic stance as potentially disastrous for the Middle East.
In the end it is only the United States, with its huge aid budget for Egypt (most of it miltary aid), that stands any chance of influencing events in the country, and even its influence may not prove decisive. Meanwhile, the rest of us can only look on as a country which, a mere month ago seemed a stable force in a highly unstable region, looks over the brink.
What’s your view?
- Do you think President Mubarak should stand down now or be allowed to stay in office till the autumn?
- Do you believe him when he says he is prepared to go then? Do you think the army is behaving responsibly or do you suspect it of playing a more subtle and dangerous game?
- Do you think the West (and the USA in particular) has been two-faced in its attitude to the Mubarak regime or do you think it has followed an essentially sensible policy over the last thirty years?
- Do you think an orderly transition to a more democratic society is possible on Egypt or not?
- How worried or not do you think we should be at the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood might take power in Egypt?
- And what do you think is the most likely outcome of the current stand-off in Egypt?
