About every politician seeking “air time” has a position on what the US should, or should not, do about the uprisings in Egypt. In an idyllic world the principles of the US Constitution and the ideals of the Declaration of Independence would guide our every action, but we don’t live in an idyllic world do we?
The government’s options are framed with regard to what it should and what it can do. It is trapped by three opposing needs. The first is the precedents and commitments made by past administrations, the second is the risk to national security, and finally there are the current political frictions within the government itself.
Of the first -- we have, since the last World War, entered into a significant number of treaties, multinational and bilateral agreements with other nations. These range from membership in the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, down to things like the Camp David accords. If we were to disregard those agreements every time we have a change in administration we would not be able to function on the international stage. In the current situation we have made significant commitments to both Egypt and Israel to secure their peace for 30 years. The Camp David accords have bound us to the government of Egypt since September 1978. We have kept a standing multinational force of observers positioned in the Sinai since that agreement was reached. Today that force is about 1,600 strong. The US contribution is about 700 soldiers taken mostly from the National Guard, plus several billions of dollars in support to both Israel and Egypt. At the time of the accords I think most Egyptians favored the agreement, but they were not consulted because Egypt has effectively had a one party government since 1954, and Anwar Sadat did not feel it necessary to secure popular approval. As Islamic fundamentalism has grown the cleric’s have continued to espouse the destruction of Israel, and fostered the climate for overthrow and a return to a theocracy like Iran. If we come out for the resignation of Hosni Mubarak do we really think we get a democratically elected replacement that would continue to abide by the accords and be willing to deal on a friendly basis with the US? Clearly the administration is caught in the horns of dilemma. They have treaties at risk, agreements to live up to and an administration that has been an ally to the US for 32 years; what do you lose when it falls, and what do you gain if you help it fall?
Next is that nebulous catchall idea of National Security. What is the risk to the nation and what do we do to minimize it? Right now we have a weakened economy that would probably collapse if the OPEC oil were cut off for a significant amount of time. The leaders of the OPEC are, for the most part, sympathetic to US interests. They understand that if the dollar collapses so does most of their personal wealth. It is clearly in our mutual interest to keep the Middle East as stable as possible to ensure the flow of oil towards us, and wealth towards them. If Egypt fails, will there be a domino affect on the other kingdoms and dictatorships? Will all those countries then turn to radical Islamic rule? This was, in some sense, the same concern we had about communist world domination in the 1950’s that led us to fight the war in Vietnam. The question that must be answered is there a rational Islamic leader capable of reaching a mutually acceptable relationship with a Judeo-Christian country? If there is, how do we support him without causing the radical clerics to lead the people in uprising? This is a particularly troubling problem for an administration that assumes a rational secular approach to government. Since the President has been so focused on internal affairs like health care and the election loss I would bet he and his advisors are unprepared to answer that question right now.
The final part of the puzzle is our current domestic situation. When we have a strong economy, the options available to the president are much wider than they are when we are struggling with high unemployment, spiraling trade deficits and sky rocketing national debt. We have a new congress, filled with new representatives. Most have little history or understanding of the global dynamic, beyond what they may have read. They were elected because of the friction over health care, national debt, bloated government, and the wars we’ve been engaged in since 9/11. They are, for the most part, focused on domestic issues. At the same time each of these newly elected officials believe they are in the best position to say what the government should do. In the past we’ve tried to buy our way to peace with foreign aid. Is that an option for this administration? Where human life and individual suffering is not a concern for the mullahs, would the radical Islamic movement even accept it?
I asked a question to begin these thoughts; unfortunately it is a question I don’t have an answer for. It is nice to say we shouldn’t support dictators, or presidents for life, or we should support popular uprisings to overthrow them. It is equally troubling to realize we do not have public options and can only work quietly, behind the scenes’ to affect some sort of change. At the end of the day our government wants one thing – stability. Stability means there is no crisis, we can plan for and work other issues and concerns. Isn’t stability what most of us want in our lives?
2 comments:
It's amazing how the climate has changed since 1989. We were ebullient then, the world was changing for the better. Now it seems that there are no good options, that storm clouds are gathering and that we're in for a heckuva ride. Perhaps neither sentiment is quite right.
I can hope we find rational solutions, but when this resolves itself there will be a new problem to confound us.
Post a Comment